Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0300 Kennedy DriveSeptember 18, 1978 :sir. }eter Judge 1-:71 100 Dorset Street South-3urlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Peter, This io to confirm the Planning Co-mmission's approval of the I--C and carport revisions to the Treetop plat. A cony of the approval stipulations is erclo3ed. A revised final plat must be recorded within 90 days. Please call if you have any questions. Yours truly, Stephen Pane, Planner ;�/mch 1 onc1 XeDT.--r'=-O PAT4ea4GTUTL�PV 5UTUOZ PaRV% PaC'q0TU 'LI=4 JL-aaA OuOT4senb UT 015UTplrnq aqq go UOT40na4suOD MUTWOO 0-4 pc-po-E-Ee i9je nod uOT:Pe epaeog au-4 o4 an(I esqL-p aii4eT u qe 95UTPUT; Te=o; arISST TTT;-1 Lpaead- aqT" 64C-Eg UTq-4TY. 0-4 -4-Fun E� ;0 c Pui-: Lu-�"[ A-4aG-:lO,:Zd quoa- C-q-11 O q�C;3 (OE'•-7� I :p - i cq q--odaeo P 4ona4suon oq qscnboa zrnoii. ;-o IeAoarEde pa4ui?a5 suzi 4U@vl,l--lG,,IFL)v,, go parOa f.,)UTU,-Z U045UT-[ZtrQ-1 q4riOIS Vq4 4Dq-4 paVTAPU &ZI :03pn..0 '.Ili ;,Eacl qucxuaqt7 a a 6 s a ci a () C) -C 0 VOTIeZCKIZOZ� P-70-IrD.WZ 8 L 61 1 Z Z -4 s n5r,,%: 100 Dorset Street Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Mir. Robert Martineau, Chairman Zoning Board City Hall South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Martineau: RECEIVED AUG1 MANAGER'S OF FICE CITY SO. BURLINGTON (802) 863-2311 August 9, 1978 The purpose of this letter is to address three of the issues which were raised at the last meeting of the Zoning Board on August 7th in connection with our request for a variance from the front yard set -back requirement. As you know our original problem with a carport building has been compounded by a 10 foot measurement error such that we now have a condominium. building which encroaches in the set -back zone. It was mentioned at the last meeting that the Zoning Board would be interested in a history of the approval process with respect to the development. In 1972 a 260 unit housing devlopment was approved for the site. This project never materialized and we purchased the property in August of 1976. Early that winter we subndtted an application for a sub -division and were finally approved on June 28th for 220 units. Subsequently we redesigned the project and reduced the number of units to 138. This modified plan received approval on Septen'her 27, 1977. Subsequently we were approved for the addition of new carport buildings and some other small charges to the recreation facilities. The second question raised is why we need a variance at this late date. As you kna,�T we have completed the construction of the first phase of the project and have sold those units to individual a mers. Only then did we begin the land clearing for the phase in question. When we cleared the site uA-- realized that there were many more large trees than we had anticipated.. 6Ye also realized that the plateau of land. on which we had been building was slightly narrower in this location than our topograghic survey had sham. Therefore, in the interest of preserving the large trees we shifted some of the buildings around, as we had done on the first phase. In doing so it appears that we rude a 10 foot error and caused the problem with which we are now faced. The rather unusual configuration of the site, together with the trees, has made the placement of buildings extremely difficult, but we feel that we have made the best choice of the possible building locations. The 10 foot error is unfortunate and could have been avoided by rotating, that building slightly to the rear. Since the building is nearly half done, and would be extremeely costly to move, we are .requesting a variance from the Zoning Board to leave it in place. The last area of concern is, I believe, the size of the corrider along Kennedy Drive . Actual measurements on the site show that there will still be 60 feet remaining between the curbing and the carport building if you allow us to place the carport within the set -back area as we requested. Since Kennedy Drive now has a 40 foot paved surface, this remaining area on the westerly side of the roadway is one and one-half times as large as the street. This certainly would be adequate to put many additional lanes of traffic along Kennedy Drive should this ever become necessary. Moreover, the carport building will still be 30 feet from the property line and 40 feet from the existing sidewalk. This allows plenty of room for landscaping. As pointed out previously, the building is rather low and should be nearly invisible below the earth berm which is already in place. I hope that we have answered some of your concerns. :,kkTe shall be happy to answer any questions you might have at the next meeting of the Zoning Board. Thank you for considering our request. Very truly yours, Peter Judge PJ:pg 100 Dorset Street Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Mr. Robert Martineau, Chairman Zoning Board City Hall South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Martineau: RECEIVED AUG I I MANAGER'S OirFICE CITY SO. BURLINGTON (802) 863-2311 August 9, 1978 The purpose of this letter is to address three of the issues tidiich were raised at the last meeting of the Zoning Board on August 7th in connection with our request for a variance from the front yard set -back requirement. As you know our original problem with a carport building has been compounded by a 10 foot rteasurement error such that we now have a condcrninium building which encroaches in the set -back zone. It was mentioned at the last meeting that the Zoning Board would be interested in a history of the approval process with respect to the development. In 1972 a 260 unit housing devlopment was approved for the site. This project never materialized and we purchased the property in August of 1976. Early that winter we subadtted an application for a sub -division and were finally approved on June 28th for 220 units. Subsequently we redesigned the project and reduced the number of units to 138. This modified plan received approval on Septemr,er 27, 1977. Subsequently we were approved for the addition of new carport buildings and some other small charges to the recreation facilities. The second question raised is why we need a variance at this late date. As you know we have completed the construction of the first phase of the project and have sold those units to individual owners. Only then did we begin the land clearing for the phase in question. When we cleared the site we realized that there were many more large trees than we had anticipated. 9�e also realized that the plateau of land on which we had been building was slightly narrower in this location than our topograghic survey had shown. Therefore, in the interest of preserving the large trees we shifted some of the buildings around, as we had done on the first phase. In doing so it appears that we made a 10 foot error and caused the problem with which we are now faced. '-The rather unusual configuration of the site, together with the trees, has made the placement of buildings extremely difficult, but we feel that we have made the best choice of the possible building locations. The 10 foot error is unfortunate and could have been avoided by rotating that building slightly to the rear. Since the building is nearly half done, and would be extremeely costly to move, we are requesting a variance from the Zoning Board to leave it in place. The last area of concern is, I believe, the size of the corrider along Kennedy 'Drive . Actual measurements on the site show that there will still be 60 feet remaining) between the curbing and the carport building �f you allow us to place the carport within the set -back area as we requested. Since Kennedy Drive now has a 40 foot paved surface, this remaining area on the westerly side of the roadway is one and one-half times as large as the street. This certainly would be adequate to put many additional lanes of traffic along Kennedy Drive should this ever become necessary. Moreover, the carport building will still be 30 feet from the property line and 40 feet from the existing sidewalk. This allows plenty of room for landscaping. As pointed out previously, the building is rather low and should be nearly invisible below the earth berm which is already in place. I hope that we have answered some of your concerns. we shall be happy to answer any questions you might have at the next meeting of the Zoning Board. Thank you for considering our request. Very truly your Peter Judge PJ:pg SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Bur- lington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 21 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adlust- ment will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Offices, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Rood, South Burlington, Vermont on Monday. August 21, 1978, at 5:00 p.m. to consider the following: Appeal of Investors Corporation of Vermont seeking a variance, from Section 11.00, Dimensional require- ments of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request Is for per- mission to construct a 24 FT X 140 FT corport to within thirty (30) feet of the required front yard, an a por- tion of a six unit condominium to within slxty-five feet of the required front yard, at Treetop Can- dominiums, 300 Kennedy Drive. It Is the Intention of this notice to correct the ad which appeared on August 5, 1978. Robert M. Martineau Chalrmon Zoning Board of Adlustment August 9, 1978. July 24, 1978 Investors Cornoration of Vermont Mr. Peter Judge 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear 14r. Judge: Be advised that the South 3urlington Zoning Hoard of Adjuataent will hold a public hearing at the City Hall, Conference Rcom 1175 Williston Road on Monday, August 7, 1978 at 5:00 p.m. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend. Very truly, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer Rt4/mcg SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the -South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117,Title 24 V.S.A.-the South Burlington Zoning Board of -Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the South Furlington City Offices, Conference Room, 1175 -Williston -Road, South Burlington, Vermont on August 7 1978 at 5:00 p.m. to consider the (day of week month and date) (time) following: Appeal of Investors Corporation of Vermont seeking a variance , from Section 11.00 , Dimensional requirements of the South BurlinE ton Zoning Regula- tions. Reouest is for permission to construct a 24' x 160' carport to within forty (40) feet of the required front yard, at Treetop Condominiums, 300 Kennedy Drive. July 22, 1978 Robert M. Martineau, Chairman South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment q IWESTOR ' S '- COR ' P * ORATION OF VERMONT TREETOP CONDOMINIUMS. 300 Kennedy Drive Area zoned R-7 District Section 11.00 Dimensional requirements Minimum set back required 75 ft. Proposed set back required 40 ft. Proposed is the construction of a 241 x 1601 carport to within 40 ft. of the required front yard. , d 00, August 3, 1978 Investors Corporation of Vermont Mr. Paul Sprayregen 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Notice of Violation Section 11.00 Dimensional requirements Dear Mr. Sprayregens Be advised that one of your condominium units presently under construction at Treetop is located within the required set back (75 feet) of Kennedy Drive. This office has inspected this unit, the result of which, we find that the structure is located at sixty-five (65) feet from the right-of-way line. The concrete foundation which was constructed for a carport is also in violation of the dimensional requirements, we find this located within thirty (30) feet of the right-of-way line. The carport in question was scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on Monday, August 7, 1978. The request was to locate the carport to within forth (40) feet of the required setback. After discussing this matter with the City Attorney, he feels that both structures are in direct violation and that you should take the proper action to remedy the situation I suggest that you withdraw your original request for the car- port and resubmit an application as soon as possible. If the Zoning Hoard denies this request the concrete slab would have to be removed. A similar application should be made for the condominium unit, I would suggest that you cease construction on this unit. In accordance with provisions setforth in Vermont State Law you have ten (10) days in which to take the necessary action to correct this violation. Thank you for your co-operation. Very truly, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer August 7, 1978 Investors Corporation of Vermont Mr. Peter Judge 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Judges Be advised that the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing at the City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road on Monday, August 21, 1978 at SOO p.m. to consider your request for a zoning variance. Please plan to attend. Very truly, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2311 August 3, 1976 Mr. Dick ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Dick: As we discussed on the telephone, we are withdrawing our Zoning Variance application of August 7th and requesting a hearing on August 21st, to hear our 30' set -back request for the carports, and a 65' set -back for the building corner. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Paul Spra_yregen PS:pg QV Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street 1r. Stephen Page, Planner City of South Burlington 1175 4illiston Road. So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Steve: South Burlington, Vermont 05401 October 2, 1978 (802) 863-2311 As we discussed on the telephone last week, the Post Office is agreeable to providing delivery service directly to the Treetop Units upon receipt of a document establishing a street and numbering system. As you know our recorded plat contains the designation Bayberry Lane. If we could have a document from you indicating recognition of this street(albeit a private one) it would be most appreciated. At the same time we would have to change our numbering system to designate main entrance ways rather than individual units. Since we will ultimtely have 23 main doorways along Bayberry Lane we could number them sequentially 1 - 23, beginning with Kennedy Drive. The unit addresses would then be noted as 1A, B, C, D; 2A., B, C, D; etc. Perhaps you should check with Dick Underwood to see if this meets with his approval. 117e have been discussing recently the mailing addresses for tax bills. As a final precaution I will send a copy of this letter to our attorney, Carl Lisman, to determine if this conflicts with our Condominium Documents in any way. Pending his approval we will forward a copy of your letter designating these addresses to the Post Office and hopefully direct mail delivery can be begin. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Peter Judge PJ:pg Enc. cc; Carl Lisman = Catherine McGreevy / 7. PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 4. The original enrollment, i.e., prior to January 18, 1979, will be limited to 25 or less. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jacob and passed unanimously. Enrollment size will be part of the review mentioned in stipulation 3. ton Condominium t. plus 1 additio Mr. Peter Judge said that phase 1B of the project had had carports approved but that when the developers got out on the site and started building they found a lot of large trees which they wanted to save and so they went to the Zoning Board and received a variance to locate the carports at another location within the setback of Kennedy Drive. He did not think the change really affected the traffic flow, but it did change the roadway a little. As far as phase 1C, Mr. Judge said that they had found a lot of mature trees in that area also and they wanted to move a few of the buildings around so that these trees could be saved. He said that Mr. Page would get a plan with all the changes to the original plan on it. Mr. Goddette said that the Fire Department would like another hydrant in phase 1A and Mr. Judge said they could do it, although it would mean tearing up some of the pavement. Mr. Jacob asked about the water line for the development and was told it was 12" and internal in the project. Mr. Jacob said that the line should be brought out to Kennedy Drive and to the end of the property of Treetops. Mr. Judge asked about reimbursement for putting in an oversized line and Mr. Jacob said he would talk to the Water Commissioners about it at the meeting tomorrow. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised building and carport location for Treetops Condominiums, as shown on the plans of record, subject to the following stipulations: 1. A revised final plat shall be recorded, showing the relocated units and carport, and making appropriate references to the previously recorded final plat. 2. All prospective purchasers of affected buildinLgs_shall be shown a_ correct copy of the final plat. 3. Add additional hydrants per recommendation of Fire Chief. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewing and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm. Clerk Memorandum Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items September 8.-1978 Page 2 use on this particular site, the decision has already been made by the City Council, and only the criteria of site plan review are applicable (traffic access, circulation and parking, and land- scaping and screening). On the other hand, potential hazards may be reduced if: (1) hours of pick-up and delivery are restricted by the operator so as not to coincide with peak roadway hours (2) the overall size of the enrollment is limited, at least on a tem- porary basis, and (3) a 1 year re-evaluation is required, at which time the Commission could decide to terminate, or allow the extension or expansion of the use. #8 Treetops Final Plat Revisions - by approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the location of a carport within the 75' Kennedy Drive setback has been authorized. This revision improves fire protection and aesthetics for the residents, while at the same time, it does impinge on any forseeable roadway improvements. The relocation of several of the buildings will save some of the more desirable trees on site, and also increases building separations, thus enhancing fire protection and aesthetics. The Fire Chief has asked for one additional fire hydrant in this phase, which was inadvertantly omitted during one of the numerous revisions to the initially approved final plat. P.S.'s (1) A special joint meeting of Council and Planning"�4�be called for Monday evening (9/11) to review the results of a Williston Road/Dorset Street intersection traffic study, which was conducted relative to the appeal of the Red Coach Grill Subdivision application. T i e se, w (2) The planning Commission's "soft" meeting of 9/19 has been tentatively pegged as the joint Council -Planning meeting for discussion of the following items: a) new commercial zoning (C1/C2) b) sewer policy c) lifting of interim zoning d) Perlman property fiasco e) location of Southern Connector to the Urban Systems Map. and additions/corrections zi-'FO 1. c4y,�Z_ lam- M ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME/FILE REFERENCE TR F ,Top — .- YCV CARPORT R- I S IONS & IC BUILDING 1. LETTER OF NQITIFICATION 1 2. BONDTNG OR ESCROW AGREEMETUS MOTION)OR FINDINGS & ORDER LANDSCAPING J^--• D- D»T'GN RO0-'DS CLP.BS S 1D...: A:LKS (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) 3. LIST APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND PERMITS GRANTED & SI INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: 4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE RECORDED ACCEPTED 5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x 5. ROAD. AYS DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x 7.1 FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY — STED SIGNED#` & FILED OR RECORDED 3. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS xF ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILED �. MISCEMLANDOUS AGRE'- TENTS LASID FOR ROAD WIDENING OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINTS SF— RED ACCESS POINTS OTHER COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES PAD/DATE F � — _ ,u /t&- H:3J-=cI!IG f BUI�I;iG PE? 4--"r R SCR = IGI (R -ECO='.D C _LC-JL =.T IONS AND DEPOSIT ir: ACCOUNT) Up "Gis Ls.: mod: S TJ ;TIG::: SCF00L ".7 '7S CAR COU::TS -41 4ae50' S5905a35"W 141 5.22' S59050' 35"1N PHASE I(b) 24 unrts 2 3 if1 � N, BUILDING D g a rn z N � fyl z N }G s L ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST t PROJECT NA11-1E/FILE REFERENCE f 1. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER 2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS w LANDSCAPING CURBS S IDE : i ALKS (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) ' 3. LIST-yPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND P INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: � MITS GR2ANTM & SIT ► y$I '7� s Sa,:,�C-4k ,� 7 �'7 / 4. •UTILITY EASEMENTSBILLS OF SALE 2� 3 ' �41 RECORDED S �T it-6�L ACCEPT= �N�-- P l.1?� (o (ZO/77 5. • CERTIFICATE OF TITLE xv�=��"('"{�'9,Z'%(%% 6. ROAD -;JAYS DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED • PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x 7. %FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - STAMPED SIGNED, & FIL:M OR RECORDED 8. $ PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILED 9. MISCELLANEOUS AGRE_-MENTS • LA?]D FOR ROAD WIDENING • OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINTS • SHARED ACCESS POINTS OTHER 10. • COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES) 11. FEES - PAID DATE 2+G� ` '�UILDIll' G P IT •=yi3GIN. � `I2dG I�3SP. •: E. ITER �Y� fo(- -&za 1,�41T'> *.RECREATION (RECORD IONS :.?iD L':1-POSIT !IT ACCOUNT) 12. •Ii*FACT FOLLOi UP i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL ::" )S CAR COUNTS ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST PROJECT r'-1 ./FILE REFERENCE �^� 'V • '� � ��UII/yI`�[i 01. LE1"i'E:R OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FLJDINGS & ORDER / , 2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS LA�?DSCAP114G /6, •f4V .o ADS / T SIDEWALKS (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) 3. LIST APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND PELRMITS GRANTM & SITE INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: IFL.IS:t— 4. UTILITY EASEMENTSP�,/*, BILLS OF SAL4yZ? R ECCRD ED q�llrrl ACCEPTED 5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x 6. ROP.D BAYS DEFT-)S FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENIOX 7. FIld_1L PLAT OR RECORD COPY - STAMPED , SIGNED, & FILED OR RECORDED 8. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT:�I��� ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILED 9. MISCELLyNEOUS AGRE,'-MENTS LP.I;D FOR ROAD 4lIDENINGW OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINT SHARED ACCESS POINT OTHM 10. COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES 11. FEES - PAIDDATE HEARING YO007 BUILDING P F,RM IT ;_ ,3GINEERING INSP. S 1„iER RLCREATIOrJ (RECCRD CA .`TIONS AND DEPOSIT �( Pp till-7 t6v-3 6 pt) 22. Ii•'?' CT _FOLLO 'i UP i.e., "ON LINE" EVALU:ZiTION: SCHOOL ::IDS CAR. Cv"J..T. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1. 1979 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 1979 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room. >City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, James Ewing, Kirk Woolery, James Draper Members Absent Peter Jacob, George Mona Others Present A-�4N Stephen Page, Planner; Donald Kerwin, Robert Furlong, Geeee B. Emery, Becky Watson, J.G. Jewett, Susan Jewett, Lance Llewellyn, Ronald 'Bryan, Claude Gagne, Lowell Krassner, Peter Judge, Paul Sprayregen, Carl Lisman, William Schuele Minutes of April 24, 1979 On page 4, after the first line on that page, the following sentence should be added: "Yr. N.ona felt the motion would not modify the proposal." Mr. Woolery moved to accept the April 24, 1979 minutes as corrected. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and all voted aye. Act on layout plan of Treetops Phase II Xr. Judge said the issues raised bY the Commission at the last meeting had been resolved and put on the plan. Yr. Poger said the Commission had an opinion from the City Attorney on whether or not they can review the water situation from phase 1 of the development and he asked if the applicants would like to comment. Mr. Lisman, who represented the applicants, noted that the City Attorney suggested three grounds for the Commission to exercise jurisdiction, and suggested that the Attorney might be wrong about all three. The Attorney notes that stipulation 10 in the September 27, 1977 minutes reserved power to the Commission to review utilities in addition to other things. Ar. Lisman wondered if that reservation was an assertion of power which'no Planning Commission had u nder site plan approval. He also felt that if that reservation of power was valid, it had to do with review of utilities in phase 2, not in phase 1. On point 2 of the Attorney's memo, which is that the Commission has the authority to review the existing and proposed water system to assure ICV's compliance with City policies and stipulations of approval, Kx. Lisman felt that no one knew the city policy on water lines, so they could not determine if ICV was in compliance with it. Finally, on point 3, that it is inherent in the Commission's authority to look at previous phases of development during review of subsequent ones, where the Commission has retained jurisdication to do so, I''.r. Lisman felt that such a statement could logically lead to looking at this development several years in the future if this developer were building another project in another part of the city. Yr. Lisman agreed with the City Attorney that the Commission had to decide as a matter of equity whether this developer had to extend the water line which he feels he was told he did not have to extend. ; 2. PLANNING C014MISSION MAY 1. 1979 Mr. Lisman said the City Attorney had had the easement deeds since 1977, when they were sent to him for the water line within the boundaries of the land. He also said he read nothing in th'e 1977 approval motion which required dedication of the easement and noted that the Subdivision Regulations required city reimbursement to a developer if he were forced to overbuild water lines. ICV has not yet been reimbursed for that and there is a controversy over how much they will be paid. Mr. Poger said the reimbursement problem was between the developer and the city and that the Commission would not get in the middle. He also felt the Commission did have the power to reserve the right to review utilities and noted that it had before reserved the -powers of subdivision review over projects which were not in fact subdivisions. He also pointed out.that it has been the practice of the Commission in the near past to require extension of utilities to the end of the property and he noted that the developers had not been required to run a line along Kennedy Drive and another parallel one within the development itself, which saved the developers a good deal of cost. r`r. Poger also said that the Commission has never held up development because the same developer is building somewhere else in the city and one of the developments is in conflict. Be said, however, that this is one piece of land and that the projects are tied together. Mr. Poger said that the Commission clearly understood that it fully expected the water line to extend the length of the property and that the easement for the water line should be given to the city. Mr. Judge said that what the applicants understood was that they had to bring the water line out to Kennedy Drive but not to the property line. He felt that Bill Szymanski, Ed Blake, and the Water Department had all seen plans with the line terminating where it does now. Regarding the easements for the line, he said they had sent the Attorney a letter on that in 1977. Mr. Lisman said the only issue the Commission should be discussing was whether the water line should go to the western line of ICV and he noted that the applicants did not think they had been required to do so originally. It was also felt that the applicants had met all the conditions of the original approval, as Mr. Judge stated it was their intention to do. Mr. Page said there was some ambiguity in the original motions but said that in 1977 there was a memo from the City Engineer regarding extension of the water line the full length of the frontage. There was then discussion about how the line would be extended and under what ccpnditions reimbursement for the line 1y 3 Pi��O.1�rc�-1 would be paid. The stipulations � approvalsconcerning engineering were followed by "as approved by the City Engineer" and a lot of discussion took place between the Engineer and developer. IIr. Judge felt they had been open with the city about their intentions and that they would bring the line to the street, but not go the additional 400' to the property line. Yx. Poger felt that preliminary plat approval included a discussion about extending the line along the frontage and that would remain in effect even if the point were not mentioned at later hearings. Yx. Page added that the Engineer's memo was not specifically made part of the approval motion but that the Commission always reads and abides by those memos. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the plan for Treetops, Phase II, as shown on the plan of record, subject to the following stipulations: 1. This review is held persuant to review powers reserved by the Commission under stipulation #10 of final vlat arvroval for the entire project, dated 9 27 77. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1. 1979 2. Easements for sewer and water mains, extending through Phase I to them west property .line, and for all such mains in Phase II shall be deeded to the City prior to issuance of any additional building permits-. 3. Extension of the water main to the intersection of the westernmo& property line and the Kennedy Drive right of way is required. ' 4. A landscaping bond of $10,000 shall be posted for Phase II; the review of the planting plan shall be conducted by the planting committee or County Forester prior to release of any landscaping bonds or issuance of certificates of occupancy. ' 5. The emergency access to cluster IC shall be closed within 60 days. 6. The two stump dumps in the proximity of the brook shall be removed. 7. All buildings shall be situated outside the CO district (at or above an elevation S' above the low water mark of Potash Brook and more from its centerline). B. The final plat plan shall be recorded within 90 days. Mr. Draper seconded the motion, and after further discussion'it passed 4-1 with Mr. Levesque voting no because he felt the plan showed the water line coming out to Kennedy Drive and felt that had been discussed 2 years ago. Ins. Judge said that further delay would be harmful to the project and might mean they would miss this building season. He noted that the city had filed to be a party to a hearing on this project before the District Environmental Commission and wondered what points would be raised. Mr. Page replied that that had been a precautionary measure the City Attorney and he had felt the cite should take and he added that it would not delay the project. He said he would check with Gill Livingston before the city decided to waive the hearing. Act on recommendations to Regional Planning Commission concerning five most pressing community and five most pressing regional needs It was felt that if every community put on substantially more than five most pressing needs, this document became worth less. Concerning regional needs, Messrs. Poger and Levesque felt that the five most pressing were transportation planning, housing for low and reasonable income people and senior citizens, solid waste, planned growth, and traffic. Mr. Woolery felt that traffic,.planned growth, recreation, industrial development, and solid waste were the most pressing. Mr. Ewing's list was transportation construction, not planning, better cooperation between cities and towns on highways, and traffic. Mr. Draper's list was transportation planning, retention of local governmental control, and assistance in handling State and Federal regulations and grants. For community needs, Mr. Poger listed (not prioritized) recreation and/or facilities, solid waste disposal alternatives, administrative help, sewage disposal plant, improved intergovernmental co=unications, and accommodating growth. Mr. Levesque's list was recreation and/or facilities, administrative help (engineering help in City Hall), and sewage disposal plant. Mr. Ewing felt transportation planning, administrative help (engineering help), highway improvements, enforcement of zoning and site plan ap.rovals, and fire and building codes were pressing needs. February 25, 1982 Hachett, Valine & MacDonald Ms. Jo Ann Kerr Y.G. Box 488 Burlington, Vermont 05402 Re: I.C.V. Bond 09531482BCA Dear Ms. Kerr: Enclosed are three copies of correspondence relating to the above captioned bond. Please note my letter of July 10, 1981 requesting extension of the bond to provide completion of the landscaping. Some additional landscaping has been installed by I.C.V. since the expiration of the bond, therefore the City will not pursue the matter any further. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer IV/mc3 3 EIncls Casualty & Surety Division s 280 Chestnut Street Springfield, Massachusetts 01101 LIFE&CASUALTY 785-1261 July 6, 1981 CERTIFIED MAIL City of S. Burlington, City Hall 1175 Williston RD S. Burlington, VT 05401 ATTN: ZONING DEPT. RE: Investors Corp. of Vermont - .:9 S 31482 BCA Permit bond for landscaping project. Dear Sir/Madame: The above captioned bond has expired of it own terms. This will serve as our notice of termination of 'Liability under the provisions of the bond. May we have your approval of said cancellation. Enclosed is a postage free envelope for your convenience in replying. Sincerely, A,W-1-/A0zYtY, - Gail Grant Sr. Bond Proc. gg Enc. (Etna Life Insurance Company / fEtna Life Insurance and Annuity Company L-487-6 The ktna Casualty and Surety Company / The Standard Fire Insurance Company ""I"s LIFE & CASUALTY Casualty & Surety Division 280 Chestnut Street Springfield, Massachusetts 01 101 785-1261 September 17, 1981 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, VT 05401 Attn: Richard Ward, Zoning Admin. Officer Dear Mr. Ward: INVESTORS CORPORATION OF AMERICA 09 S 31482 BCA We will not be extending the above —captioned bond per your request. This bond has expired by its own terms. Very truly yours, (' � Eileen Lagas'e Bond Underwriter L/r cc: Hackett, Valine & MacDonald ,Etna Life Insurance Company /,Etna Life Insurance and Annuity Company L-487-6 The ,Etna Casualty and Surety Company / The Standard Fire Insurance Company July 10, 1981 Aetna Life & Casualty 280 Chestnut Street Springfield, Massachusetts 01101 Re: Landscape bond 09531482BCA Attn: Gail Grant Dear Ms. Grant: The landscaping project covered by the above captioned bond has not been completed in accordance with the approved plan on file with the City. The bond must be continued until Investors Corporation has completed the work to the satisfaction of the City. Please forward to this office a letter of continuation, the term of which should be a minimum of six months, hopefully the remaining landscaping will be completed by the fall of 1981. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg cc: I -Is . Ann Heath I.C.V. 1795 Williston Road City of South Burlington ' 575 DORSET STREET -- SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 s PLANNER 863-2882 June 4, 1981 ICV Construction Company M.0 . Ann heath 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Ms. Heath: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-2486 This will confirm our conversation regarding the landscaping related to phase II of the Treetop Condominiums. Before the bond is relaesed by the City, those trees and shrubs which died must be ieplaced. It appears that approximately ten (10) percent didn't survive. It is my understanding that we will meet at the site to review the trees in question. Please call me to schedule this site visitation. Thank you for your co-operation. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer lu/mcg ! | 7� -- / - | ' � | ,- - �1n' ----�-- ~ — ---tf-- - - ---' No Text ft, J tAn OIcj 4FIN II, CONTRACT BOND (Short Form) K E E N E NEW H A M P S i Bond No..S .13..29. 56 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, Investors Corporation of Vermont 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont ;hereinafter called "Principal"), as Principal, and the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, and authorized to transact business in the State of Vermont (hereinafter called "Surety"), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter called "Obligee"), as Obligee, in the penal sum of --Forty-Four Thousand and 00/100ths-- Dollars I$ 44,000 .00----- good and lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, jointly and sever- ally, firmly by these presents. SEALED with our seals and dated this lst day of June A. D. 19 79 . WHEREAS, the above bounden Principal has entered into a certain written contract with the above named Obligee, dated the 15th day of May 19 79 for site work in connection with Phase II - Tree Top Condomium, Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont which contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied at length herein. Now, therefore, the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bounden Principal shall well and truly keep, do and perform, each and every, all and singular, the matters and things in said contract set forth and specified to be by the said Principal kept, done and performed at the time and in the manner in said contract specified, and shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the above named Obligee, all loss and damage which said Obligee may sustain by reason of failure or default on the part of said Principal, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and effect. WITNESS: .............. : .......................... WITNESS:?Gl4x<_ r :...CC .......... . PSB-124 Investors Corporation of Vermont ................ ................................................ PEERLES INSUR�AN/CE COMPANNY Y. Kev M. Killelea, AttoPney- -Fact A PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE POWER OF ATTORNEY *110W 11I1 AISCIt 0? ZCbCSC 1prceenta: 'I hat the 111TIZI.F.SS INS URAN( ;li COMI'AN`i', e Ncw I lamp.shire Cur potation. having its prin- cipal office in the City of Keene, County of Cheshire. State of New Ilan)pshire, pursuant to the following By Law, adopted by the Stockholders of the :,aid Company on May 2. 1966, to wit: "" I WLF 4 OP SLUI'ION 2 -The President shall be the thief exc(mive officer of the Company and shall have the powers generally possessed by such officer and any additional powers that may be conferred upon him by the Board of Directors or by the Executive Committee. The President or a majority of the Executive Committee may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact, Resident Vice Presidents and Resident Assistant Secretaries and assign to them such duties as may be aeh:uuageous to the Company including the execution and attestation of bonds, undertakings, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and all other writings obligatory in the nature thereof and other documents on behalf of the Company with power to redclegate such authority. In case of the death, absence or inability to act of the President, the duties and powers of the President shall decoke upon an acting President who shall be a Director and shall be designated by the I•:xecutive Committee and act until the next Directors' meeting." This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution ad b e Board of Directors of the Peerless lnsuranee Company at its meeting duly called and held on the 14th day of December, 1472. "RF.SOLVI•:D, that, the signatures of the I'resideut..Secretary. '1'reastuer. Vice President, Assistant Vice 1 1 el , and Ass t •eretary may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or any certified copy thereof or any certification relating thereto, aimile a a surh er of Attorney or any cer- tified copy hereof. or any tertific:uion relating thereto hearing such facsimile signatures or facsiIn; .c I shall b 1i nd binding upon the Corporation in the future with respect to any bonds, undertakings, recognizances or contracts of inde o whit is atta does hereby make, constitute and appoint Kevin M. elea of Keene in the State of New Ishire its true and lawful attorney (s)-in-fact, witl wee an thority ereby conferred in its name, place and stead,to sign, execute, acknowl- edge and deliver in its behalf, and as it act a without er of redelegation, as follows: bonds guaranteeing the fi f pe Iding places of public or privat ; guaranteeing the performance of contracts other th nsur olici nd executing or guarant bonds undertakings required or per- mitted in all actions r rocee or bylaw allowed: and to bind the PEPRLESS ANCE COMPANY thereby as fully an t me ext s if such bond or undertaking was signed by the duly authorized officers of the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPA and all t e a of said ttorney (s) , pursuant to the authority herein given, are hereby ratified and confirmed. In Witness 'lliAbereot, the PEERLESS INSURANCE P Y has caused these presents to be signed by its President, and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed by its Secretary this 25th day of August 1975 Attest: PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY ,S �S13 R A,N_`', By . Secretary /L�w�✓�� President / f��� r State of New Hampshire l County of Cheshire J ss' On this 25th day of August 1975 , before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of New Hampshire in and for the County of Cheshire , duly commissioned and qualified, came Robert G. Pyne, President and Charles N. Tremblay, Secretary of the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described herein, and who executed the pre- ceding instrument, and they acknowledged the execution of the same, and being by me duly sworn, deposed and said, that they are officers of said Company aforesaid, and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and the said Corporate Seal and their signatures as officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the Said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation, and that Article 4, Section 2, of the By -Laws, of said Company, referred to in the preceding instrument is now in force. In Uestlmonp 'aliAbereot, the day. , 4,;year above written. I Mommtsston expires State of New I shire l Couitt,il", t C k al ire J ss. have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal at Keene, New Hampshire \V--aA'vtti O�M.A� Notary Public. I, C. N. Tremblay Secretary of the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY,']@rtb'2�tify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a POWER OF ATTORNEY, executed by said PEERLESS INSU�Zfi1� Ir_CCfi4)[ y, which is still in force and effect. In Witness Wbercot, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the Compa,. at Keene, NeNilpmp#q c this 1st day of June , 19 79 i�NG..b�'tV'{�J FBdlI tttgyt{i[�4 Form PS-97E (Rev. 1/73) Secretary. E R L E S S c/iv�tUr �,an�rrr, CONTRACT BOND Bond No..S 13 29, 56 (Short Form) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, Investors Corporation of Vermont 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont thereinafter called "Principal"), as Principal, and the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, and authorized to transact business in the State of Vermont (hereinafter called "Surety"), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter called "Obligee"), as Obligee, in the penal sum of --Forty-Four Thousand and 00/100ths-- Dollars I$ 44,000 .00----- good and lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, jointly and sever- ally, firmly by these presents. SEALED with our seals and dated this 1st day of June A. D. 19 79 . WHEREAS, the above bounden Principal has entered into a certain written contract with the above named Obligee, dated the 15th day of May 19 79 for site work in connection with Phase II - Tree Top Condomium, Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont which contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied at length herein. Now, therefore, the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bounden Principal shall well and truly keep, do and perform, each and every, all and singular, the matters and things in said contract set forth and specified to be by the said Principal kept, done and performed at the time and in the manner in said contract specified, and shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the above named Obligee, all loss and damage which said Obligee may sustain by reason of failure or default on the part of said Principal, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and effect. WITNESS: ............... .................... I .... I WITNESS:. rt 14 ?u 4<_.,,�.��................. PSB•124 Investors Corporation of, Vermont ................ ................................................ PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY 6���e4 47 Kev M. Killelea, Attorney -in -Fact IN PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE POWER OF ATTORNEY 1k110W Till A of UP Cbcsc WCUnts: Thai the 14TIZITSS INSURAV,1. COMI'AN't'..i Ncw I lampshire Corporation, having; its prin- cipal office in the City of Keene. County of Cheshire, State of New Ilantpshire. pursuant to the following 11y Law, adopted by the Stockholders of the ::aid Company on May 2. 1966, to wit: "AR I'ICLF 4 OF SFCFION 2 'I lie Ptc,idenl shall he the chief e•xe•colive officer of the Company and shall hale the powers genvially possessed by such officer and any additional powers that may be conferred upon him by the Board of Directors or by the Executive Committer. The President or a majority of the Executive (:onrtuitwe may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact, Resident Vice Presidents and Resident Assistant Secretaries and assign to them such duties as may he advantageous to the Company including the execution and attestation of bonds, undertakings, recognizanccs, contracts of indemnity, and all other writings obligatory in the nature thereof and other documents on behalf of the Company with power to redelegate such authority. In ease of the death, absence or inability to art of the President, the duties and powers of the President shall devolve upon an acting President who shall be a Director and shall be designated by the Executive Committee and act until the next Directors' meeting.- This Power of Attorney is signed and scaled by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolution ad b e Board of Directors of the Peerless lnsuranu Company at its meeting duly called and held on the 14th day of December, 1912. "RF.SOLVI•:D. that, Uu• signatures of the President. Secretary. 1're:uurer. Vice President, Assistant Vice I t et , and Ass t -cretary may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or any certified copy thereof or any certification relating thereto, csimilr 'u a such er of Attorney or any cer- tified copy hereof. or any certification relating thereto hearing such facsimile signatures or facsimil c I shall b li nd binding upon the Corporation in the future with respect to arw bonds, undertakings, recognizance•s or contracts of inde o whic is atta does hereby make, constitute and appoint Kevin M. elea of Keene in the State of New Ishire its true and lawful attorney (s) -in-fact, will wee an thority erehy conferred in its name, place and stead,to sign, execute, acknowl- edge and deliver in its behalf, and as it act a without er of redelegation, as follows: bonds guaranteeing the fi f pe Iding places of public or privat ; guaranteeing the performance of contracts other th -nsur olici nd executing or guarant ' bonds undertakings required or per- mitted in all actions r procee or by law allowed: and to bind the PEERLESS ANCE COMPANY thereby as fully an t me ext s if such bond or undertaking was signed by the duly authorized officers of the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPA and all t e a s of said ttorney (s) , pursuant to the authority herein given, are hereby ratified and confirmed. In Witness Wbereot, the PEERLESS INSURANCE P Y has caused these presents to be signed by its President, and its Corporate Seal to be hereto affixed by its Secretary this 25th day of August 1975 Attest: PEERLESS INSURA E COMPANY /7 � By:.0-2 Secretary President State of New Hampshire t County of Cheshire J ss. On this 25th day of August 1975 , before the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of New Hampshire in and for the County of Cheshire , duly commissioned and qualified, came Robert G. Pyne, President and Charles N. Tremblay, Secretary of the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described herein, and who executed the pre- ceding instrument, and they acknowledged the execution of the same, and being by me duly sworn, deposed and said, that they are officers of said Company aforesaid. and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and the said Corporate Seal and their signatures as officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Corporation, and that Article 4, Section 2, of the By -Laws, of said Company, referred to in the preceding instrument is now in force. In ttestimong 'lliAbeeeot, the dax,AA4,ygar above written. Mgz:tommission, expires embitIf, t9-6 Staf f New,,k1WTP ire l Cou'ht�! rax - moire J ss. have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal at I, C. N. Tremblay Secretary of the that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a POWER OF ATTORNEY, which is still in force and effect. In Witness Wbeteot, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of thl this 1st day of June , 19 79 Form PS-97E (Rev. 1/73) Keene, New Hampshire Notary Public. PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, f„�x;cs_ c�i`,`�grRFty,•'� teFtify executed by said PEERLESS INSU tl� @"Ct9f+ I A�Y, Compat. at Keene, New Jiampl • - S�$ r.tl-4iYx Secretary. CONTRACT BOND Short form) PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE Bond No .S . 68-0078.8 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 hereinafter called "Principal"), as Principal, and the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, and authorized to transact business in the State of Vermont (hereinafter called "Surety"), as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of South Burlington, Vermont Thereinafter called "Obligee"), as Obligee, in the penal sum of ----------Forty Thousand and no/100 ------------------------------------------------- Dollars i$ 40,000.00 ;, good and lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, jointly and sever- ally, firmly by these presents. SEALED with our seals and dated this 16th day of November A. D. 19 77 . WHEREAS, the above bounden Principal has entered into a certain written contract with the above named Obligee, dated the 9th day of November 1977 for excavating in connection with condominiums on Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont which contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied at length herein. Now, therefore, the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bounden Principal shall well and truly keep, do and perform, each and every, all and singular, the matters and things in said contract set forth and specified to be by the said Principa! kept, done and performed at the time and in the manner in said contract specified, and shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the above named Ofbligee, all loss and damage which said Obligee may sustain by reason of failure or default on the part of said Principal, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and effect. WITNESS: ......................................... j } WITNESS:. ..�' INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT PEERUS IINSURANC(E COMP NY By Martin J. Cb ier, AtTor� -in-Fact PSB• 124 LANDSCAPING/PLANTING BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT of SOUTH BURLINGTON , State of. VERMONT' hereinafter called the Principal, and AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY hereinafter called the Surety, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of CONNECTICUT , with its home office in the City of HARTPORD State of CONNECTICUT _, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON of SOUTH BURLINGTON — , State of VERMONT hereinafter called the Obligee, in the sum of TEN THOUSAND _($10,000*) - dollars; for the payment whereof the Principal binds itself, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and the Surety binds itself, its successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Signed, sealed and dated this 16th day of MAY ,1979. WHEREAS, INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT has petitioned for (Principal) and been awarded approval on site plan for CONSTRUCTION OF CONDOMINIUMS AT KENNEDY DRIVE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT (PHASE TWO) a under Site Plan Review procedures of the City of South Burlington' Zoning Regulations. • 2/ WHEREAS, INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT is required by (Principal) such Zoning Regulations to provide surety bond in amount equal to: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR LANDSCAPING as guarantee that such work will be performed in accordance with such Zoning Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of the foregoing obligation is such that if INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT (Principal) shall faithfully perform such work in accordance with the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect for a period of one year from WITNESS: MAY . 1979. By WITNESS: INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT (Principal) AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY (Surety) By �. At orney L. ID SMITH I� LIFE & CASUALTY THE XTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY Hartford, Connecticut 06115 POWER OF ATTORNEY AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY(S)-IN-FACT KNOW ALI MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE kTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and having its principal office in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford, State of Connecticut, hath made. constituted and appointed, and does by these presents make, constitute and appoint L. F. Hackett, Duane A. Valine, Donald R. MacDonald, William J. Angell, L. David Smith or Cheryl A. Larrow - - of Burlington, Vermont , its true and lawful Attorneys -in -Fact, with full power and authority hereby conferred to sign, execute and acknowledge, at any place within the United States or, if the following line be filled in, within the area there designated , the following instrument(s) by his sole signature and act, any and all bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or con- ditional undertaking, and any and all consents incident thereto and to bind THE kTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, thereby as fully and to the same extent as if the same were signed by the duly authorized officers of THE kTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, and all the acts of said Attomeys-in-Fact, pursuant to the authority herein given, are hereby ratified and con- firmed This appointment is made under and by authority of the following Standing Resolutions of said Company which Resolutions are now in full force and effect: VOTED: That each of the following officers: Chairman, Vice Chairman, President, Any Executive Vice President, Any Senior Vice President, Any Vice President, Any Assistant Vice President, Any Secretary, Any Assistant Secretary, may from time to time appoint Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries, Attorneys -in -Fact, and Agents to act for and on behalf of the Company and may give any such appointee such authority as his certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company s name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors may at any time remove any such appointee and revoke the power and authority given him VOTED That any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance. or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the President, an Executive Vice President, a Senior Vice President, a Vice President, an Assistant Vice President or by a Resident Vice President, pursuant to the power prescribed in the certificate of authority of such Resident Vice President, and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary or by a Resident Assistant Secretary pursuant to the power prescribed in the certificate of authority of such Resident Assistant Secretary or (br duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact pur- suant to the power prescribed in his or their certificate or certificates of authority This Power of A,torney and Certificate of Authority is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following Standing Resolution voted by the Board of Directors of THE kTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY which Resolution is now in full force and effect: VOTED: That the signature of each of the following officers: Chairman, Vice Chairman, President, Any Executive Vice President, Any Senior Vice President, Any Vice President, Any Assistant Vice President Any Secretary, Any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any power of attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory n the nature thereof and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing such fac- simile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and fac- simile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE kTNA CASUALT y AND SURETY COMPANY has caused this instrument to be signed by its Secretary and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed this 13th day of January 1976 THE /ETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY C MPANY s� �f HARTF 1, - :i CONN o BY State of Connecticut 1 secretary > ss. Hartford County of Hartford ) On this 13th day of January 1 1976 , before me personally came Co Q• SWARTS to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he is Secretary of THE kTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; that he knows the seal of said cor- po, ation. that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal, and that he executed the said instrument on behalf of the corporation by authority of his office under the Standing Resolutions thereof Tqq� ,% '•S AV 91�G 2: _ 9,9r c02,. "FORD• " My commission expir ch 31 19 8. Notary Public CERTIFICATE Assistant Secretary i, the undersigned, of THE kTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a stock corporation of the State of Connecticut DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached Power of Attorney and Certificate of Authority remains in full force and has not been revoked; and furthermore. that the Standing Resolutions of the Board of Directors, as set forth in the Certificate of Authority, are now in force Signed ano Sealed at the Home Office of the Company in the City of Hartford. State of Connecticut Dated this 16TH day of MAY . 1979 a HARTFOAD. t - z CONN (S-1922-D, IM' Q 72 October 22, 1979 Investors Corporation of Vermont 11r. Peter Judge 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 054U1 Re: Treetop Dear Peter: This letter will confirm our conversation of last week rebardino the bona and legal documents on file with us for phase i of Treetop. On August 1, 1979 the letter to you from Steve Page, he pointed out the tew remaining items necessary before we could close out the paper work on phase 1. Attorney Lisman should make the corrections requested by Attorney Spoxes, the documents should be signed by you and delivered to Attorney Spokes or myself. William Szymanski has completed his inspection and is satisfied, therefore we are prepared to release the bonds. The documents seem to be the only hang-up. Thanks for your co-operation. Very truly, Richard ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 191 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402 LOUIS LISMAN BERNARD LISMAN ROBERT E. MANCHESTER CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER Mr. Richard Ward South Burlington Planning Commission 1775 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Dear Dick: November 1, 1979 TREETOP We are enclosing a photocopy of each 5�f.the documents required by the Planning Commission, already executed by ICV. ery jprq)�y ypurs, Carl H. Lisman CHL:ces Enc. B02-B64-5756 November 1, 1979 Attorney Richard Spokes 1775 Williston hoad South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Treetop Dear hick. Hopefully the enclosed uocuments met with your approval, they should reflect those changes which were requested of Attorney Lisman by you around Aul;ust 1st. IT. Szymanski has completed his inspection of the utilities in Phase I. He is satisfied with the completed work and is prepared to release the performance bond for this phase. We have bonds for phase II and some of these docur►ents pertain to Phase li. Attorney Lisman has the signed originals and will deliver them to us, once you review and approve them. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer kW/mcg PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY 82 MAPLE AVENUE KEENS, NEW HAMPSHIRE O0431 May 30, 1979 Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Officer 1175 Williston Road South Burlington City Hall South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Bond S 68 00 88 Dear Sir: On or about November 9, 1977 the peerless Insurance Company provided a bond in the amount of $40,000 running to the City of South Burlington and covering landscaping to be done in connection with the construction by Investors Corporation of Vermont of 36 condominium units on Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. We now ask your advice regarding the completion of this obligation so that we can close our file. Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated; we have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for this purpose. L.A. Barnes Bond Manager LAB/ly Enc. I PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY S2 MAPLE AVENUE KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03431 August 16, 1979 Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Officer 1175 Williston Road South Burlington City Hall South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Bond S 68 00 88 Dear Sir: Please refer to my letter of May 30, 1979 regarding the above. Your prompt reply concerning the completion of this obligation would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, L.A. Barnes Bond Manager LAB/ly August 20, 1979 Peerless Insurance Company 62 Maple Avenue Keene, New Hampshire 03431 Attn: Mr. L.A. Barnes Re: Bond S 68 0088 Dear Mr. Barnes: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter (page 2 only) which this office received from Mr. Peter Judge, dated May 25, 1979. Please note paragraph 11 - the bond in question was to be continued to cover site improvements of phase II of the Treetop Condominiums. To date Treetop has three bonds on file with the City. They are #S68-00-88 in the amount of $40,000; #S68-0089 in the amount of $10,000 and #S13-29-56 for $44,U00. Please furnish this office with a notice -of -continuation regarding the first two bonds. If you have any questions, please contact me at 863-2882. Thank you for your co-operation. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg 1 Enc 1 SPOKES El),�(DBUCHOWSKf ATTO RN F_ t"'P%W LAW _. 1'. 0. BOX ...1: SOUTH BURLINCTON, VERMONT 054W RICI-IAR.D A. SPOKES IO.Sf:),1i F. OBUCHO\X'.SM May 24, 1979 Carl H. Lisman, Esq. Lisman & Lisman 191 College Street Burlington, 'Vermont 05402 Re: Investors Corporation of. Vermont Dear Carl: M 's a: ay .vA 1775 WILLISTON ROAD T[.LEPHONE(802)863-2857 +�14 s The City of South Burlington has the following comments in connec- tion with your preliminary draft: 1. Bill of Sale - The conveyed property should be more specifi- cally described to include "piping, joints, T's, valves, gates, hydrants, and all other items and appurtenances." The Bill of Sale should indicate that it does not include, "building service lines." The document should also include the usual covenants of warranty, and I am enclosing as Exhibit "A" sample language for the warranty provisions. 2. We will need a Bill of Sale for the water and se:.:er lines for Phase II. The document should be in the same format described in #1 above. 3. Agreement and Waiver - The draft does not reflect the present situation. It should refer to the planning commission's approvals for both Phases I and II. The Applicant - Landowner setup is not applicable to your situation. The roads should be identified by reference to the appropriate plans, and the number of units is 188 and not 240 as set forth in your draft. One document can cover the roads of both Phases. 4. Offer of Irrevocable Dedication for Phase I Easements - this is o.k. in its present form. Carl H. Page 2 May 24, 5. Easement Deed for Phase I - This document must contain the usual covenants of warranty, and I am enclosing as Exhibit "B" the requi- site language. Paragraph 2 should be changed to read as follows: "Together with an easement on lands now or formerly of Investors Corporation of Vermont lying northerly of Kennedy Drive and southerly of Bayberry Road, so-called, for two (2) water connections to service lands southerly of Kennedy Drive, said easements to be fixed upon installation of the connection lines." There should be some reference in this document setting forth ICV's legal. right convey the easements. 6. Offer of Irrevocable Dedication for Phase II Easements - This document is o.k. in its present form. 7. Right of Way Easement for Phase II Utilities - The usual covenants of warranty as referred to above should be included in this document. The City does not desire title to the pumping station and force main, and thus, these should be specifically excluded from the conveyance. 8. The "as builts" for Phase I should contain minimum dimensions and./or bearings, and you should confer with Bill Szymanski to determine what will be acceptable. 9. The Phase II Plan depicts buildings over some of the utility easements. This obviously is unacceptable, and relocation will be necessary. 10. The contents of Bill Szymanski's letter of May 14, 1979 to Paul Sprayregen must be adhered to, and appropriate provisions made in the utility plans. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit "C" 11. The City requires an $87,000 corporate surety bond or escrow agreement in satisfactory form for the utilities and other public improvements in Phase II. This must be approved by my office prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The water line extension for Phase I must be completed. prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase II, or in the alternative, an appropriate escrow agreement must be submitted for my offices approval. Agreement should obligate the developer to complete the work by August 1, 1979. You should confer with Bill Szymanski to ascertain the bonded amount. I hope this letter 'reflects the joint concerns of Bill Szymanski, Steve Page and myself. To be expeditious, however, I am sending you this letter prior to their review. Thus, if I have neglected anything, it should be understood that Bill or Steve may have additional input. It also might save time if you submit future drafts to Steve and my office. Ver, trul yyours, Rich d A. o es RAS /r. cw Enclosures cc: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Steven Page, City Planner Richard Ward, City Administrative Officer RICHARD A. SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI Carl F. Lisman, Esq. Lisman & Lis, -man 191 College Street Burlington, Vermont SPOKES & OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. Box 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT OS401 45482 May 24, 1979 Re: Investor. Corporation of Vermont Dear Carl: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) $63-2857 The City of South Burlington has the following comments in connec- tion with your preliminary draft: 1. Bill of Sale - The conveyed property should be more specifi- cally described to include "piping, joints, T's, valves, gates, hydrants, and all other items and appurtenances," The Bill of Sale should indicate that it does not include, "building service lines." The document should also include the usual covenants of warranty, and I am enclosing as Exhibit "A" sample language for the warranty provisions. 2. We will need a Bill of Sale for the water and sewer lines for Phase II. The document should be in the same format described. in #1 above. 3. Agreement and Waiver - The draft does not reflect the present situation. It should refer to the planning commission's approvals for both Phases I and II. The Applicant -- Landowner setup is not applicable to your situation. The roads should be identified by reference to the appropriate plans, and the number of units is 188 and not 240 as set forth in your draft. one document can cover the roads of both Phases. 4. offer of Irrevocable medication for Phase I Easements - this is o.k. in its present form. Carl 11. Lisman, Esq. Page 2 May 24, 1979 S. Rasem-nt Deed for Phase I - This document must contain the usual covenants of warranty, and I air enclosing as Exhibit "B" the requi- site language. Paragraph 2 should be changed to read as follows': "Together with an eraserient on lands now or formerly of investors Corporation of Vermont lying northerly of Kennedy Drive and southerly of Bayberry Road, so-called, for two (2) water connections to service lands southerly of Kennedy Drive, said easements to be fixed upon installation of the connection lines." There should be some reference in this document setting forth ICV's legal. right convey the easements. 6. Offer of Irrevocable Dedication for Phase II Easements - This document is o.k. in its r present form. 7. Right of Way Easement for Phase IT Utilities - The usual covenants of warranty as referred to above should be included in this document. The City does not desire title to the pumping station and force main, and thus, these should, be specifically excluded from the conveyance. 8. The "as builts" for Phase I should contain minimum dimensions and/or bearings, and you should confer with Bill Szymanski to determine what will be acceptable. 9. The Phase 11 Plan depicts buildings over some of the utility easements. This obviously is unacceptable, and relocation will be necessary. 10. The contents of Bill Szymanski's letter of May 14, 1979 to Paul Sprayregen rust be adhered to, and appropriate provisions rqade in the utility plans. 2N, copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit "C" 11. The City requires an $87,000 corporate surety bond or escrow agreentent in satisfactory form for the utilities and other public improvements in Phase II. This must be approved by my office prior to the issuance of any building perrAts. Carl H. Lisman, Esq. Page 3 May 24, 1979 12. The water line extension for Phase I rust be com-pleted prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase II, or in the alternative, an appropriate escrow agreement must be submitted for my office's approval. Agreement should obligate the developer to complete the work by August 1, 1979. You should confer with Bill Szymanski to ascertain the bonded amount. I hope this letter reflects the joint concerns of Bill Szymanski, Steve Page and myself. To be expeditious, however, I am sending you this letter prior to their review. Thus, if I have neglected anythina, it should be understood that Bill or Steve may have additional input. It also might save time if you submit future drafts to Steve and my office. Very truly yours, Richard A. Snokes RAS/rcw Enclosures CC,! William J. Szymanski, City manager Steven Page, City Planner Richard Ward, City Administrative Officer CONTRACT BOND (Short Form) PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY KEENE, NEW HAMPSHIRE Bond NoS 68-007:89 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 ,hereinafter called "Principal"), as Principal, and the PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, and authorized to transact business in the State of Vermont (hereinafter called "Surety"(, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter called "Obligee"), as Obligee, in the penal sum of ---------------------Ten Thousand and no/100 ----------------------------------------- Dollars I$ 10,000.00 good and lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns, jointly and sever- ally, firmly by these presents. SEALED with our seals and dated this 16th day of November A. D. 19 77 . WHEREAS, the above bounden Principal has entered into a certain written contract with the above named Obligee, dated the 9th day of November 1977 for landscaping in connection with condominiums on Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont which contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied at length herein. Now, therefore, the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bounden Principal shall well and truly keep, do and perform, each and every, all and singular, the matters and things in said contract set forth and specified to be by the said Principal kept, done and performed at the time and in the manner in said contract specified, and shall pay over, make good and reimburse to the above named Obligee, all loss and damage which said Obligee may sustain by reason of failure or default on the part of said Principal, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, to be and remain in full force and effect. WITNESS: ........................ ................ �, WITNESS:.. .................................. PSB-124 INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT ................................................ By:+�� : "............ . PEERLESS INSURA CE Y By ...... e�lr: CF s-...:...... . Martin J. Chartier, Attorney in -Fact August 1, 1979 Messrs. Peter Judge b Paul Sprayregan ICV Construction Company 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Treetops Phase II Dear Petere& Paul: Building permits have been issued today for buildings "M" 6 "N" (16 D.U.'s) of Treetops, phase II. I think it would be mutually beneficial at this point to attempt to summarize where things stand: 1. legal - after meeting with Dpck Spokes yesterday, I be- lieve he finds that all legal documents are in generally good shape, with the exception of 5 or 6 housekeeping items which will be dealt with in a letter from him to Carl Lisman, that is going out within a day or two. 2. bonding, fees - the new Peerless bond for $44,000 refers to a written contract between ICV and the City which describes the site wigk being bonded - is there such a contract? Also, the doc- ument has not been signed by ICV. I assume the engineering inspection fee has been paid. The recreation fee of $15.67 per unit will be due and payable as future permits are issued. The new landscaping bond appears to be in order. 3, Mylar plat for recording - as you know, Planning Commission approval is necessary for the changes made to the Phase II layout since it was originally approved in May of this year. I have tent- atively scheduled this for the Commission agenda of August 14. As I see it, none of the changes are substantive from ad overall plan- ning perspective however, I personally think it is a far better practice to seek approval on layout revisions of this magnitude be- fore proceeding with them. It is critically important that as the units are sold, the same plan which is shown to prospective buyers is that which has been approved by the Commission and recorded in the land records, and that it accurately reflects what is going up in the field. Based on our experiences elsewhere in the City, to do otherwise inevitably results in a lot of aggravation and wasted time for all concerned. You will note that the permits issued Messrs. Peter Judge b Paul Sprayregan August 1, 1979 Page 2 today refer to the plan approved by the Commission, and not to the as yet unapproved mylar which Peter brought in last week. I think it would be reasonable to expect that these various divets can be cleaned up well in advance of your next building permit request. I would like to obtain a couple of full scale prints of the plot plan once the Commission has taken action. I assume that you will eventually be recording an "as -built" plan for Phase II, which shows accurate building and utility locations (as you have drawn for Phase I already). If my facts are incorrect, or you disagree with my opinion on any of these matters, I would like to meet with you to resolve them as soon as possible. I am personally determined to respond promptly and equitably on this and any future projects you may have in South Burlington, and to disregard past personal differences. I would like to restore a cordial working relationship as it can only work to our mutual advantage. Yours truly, Stephen Page SP/mcg 4 .11A4.) 1795 Williston Road Investors Corporation of Vermont Investors Management Company ICV Construction, Inc. South Burlington, Vermont 05401 May 25, 1979 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Building Permit Phase II Treetop Condominiums Dear Dick: (802)863-2311 Yesterday we obtained a copy of a letter from Richard Spokes to our attorney, Carl Lisman, outlining our remaining requirements for obtaining a building permit for the next units in the Treetop Development. It is our understanding that we have complied with all of the other conditions set forth in our subdivision approval of September 27, 1977, in our site plan approval of May 1, 1979 and in Pir. Spoke's letter of May 11, 1979. Mr. Spoke's letter also in- corporates changes required by the City Engineer as set forth in his letter of May 14, 1979. After reviewing yesterday's letter from P4r. Spokes, we find that we can address his points in the following manner: 1. Carl Lisman is redrafting the bill of sale to con- form with this condition. This will be in your hands not later than Friday, June 1. 2. Mr. Lisman has indicated that we can not furnish you with a Bill of Sale for the water and sewer lines which have not yet been installed. We can provide you with this document as soon as these improvements have been completed. 3. The Agreement and Waiver Agreement is being revised by Mr. Lisman and will be in your hands not later than Friday, June 1. Page 2 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05401 4. Mr. Spokes has indicated that this condition has been satisfied. 5. The Easement Deed for Phase I is being modified by Mr. Lisman to conform with your requirements. The revised docmTtent will be in your hands not later than Friday, June 1. 6. Mr. Spokes has indicated that this condition has been satisfied. 7. Mr. Lisman is revising the Right-of-TKay Easement for Phase II utilities to reflect the required covenants of warranty. It is our understanding that the City has not yet decided whether it requires title to the pumping station and force main. As soon as the City makes its decision, we are agreeable to meeting the condition. It makes no difference to us whether or not the City requires title to the pumping station and force main. 8. We are revising the "as built" drawings for Phase I to reflect some dimensions and bearings. This work will be completed not later than Friday, June 1. 9. We have discussed the width of the utility easements with Mr. Szymanski and he has agreed that these can be narrowed in certain sections. Since the width of the easements in the areas where they fall under carport buildings is approximately 30', there would appear to be ample room to work on the utility lines should a problem ever develop in the future. 10. We are agreeable to following the recommendations con- tained in Mr. Szymanski's letter of May 14, 1979. These changes will be reflected in the revised draft of the utility plans which will be furnished to the City not later than Friday, June 1. 11. We have discussed the bonding requirement with Mr. Szymanski and made him aware that we plan to construct Phase II in several sections. We plan to construct the entire sewage system but only partially complete the roadway, water lines and storm sewers. In this event, he indicated that he would be satisfied to continue the existing $40,000 bond with a proviso that permits for ad- ditional buildings beyond Section I would not be issued until satisfactory site improvements have been completed in connection with the first buildinas. Page 3 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05401 12. We are agreeable to placing $6,000 in an escrow ac- count to insure that the required water line extension is completed. This work shall be done not later than August 1 as specified in Mr. Spoke's letter. In fact, we plan to begin immediately to construct the necessary line and we would ask that the City release the escrowed funds immediately upon the completion of construction and satisfactory testing of the line. In this letter, I have indicated a reasonable time schedule which we can meet to satisfy all of the remaining requirements of the City of South Burlington. We are requesting an immediate issuance of a building permit for the first section of Phase II. As you know, we have halted all work, with the exception of utility line installation, pending the issuance of the necessary permit. Ifie are agreeable to a condition that. the building permit be revoked if our schedule, as outlined above, is not adhered to. At the same time, we request that the City continue its expeditious review of the documen- tation so that any errors or omissions in the document drafts can be quickly corrected. We wish to establish a good working relationship with the City of South Burlington knowing that, in the long run, both your interests and ours are served by mutual cooperation. Your favorable consideration of this request would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Peter /gfZe� PJ/vmg cc: Iv1r. Richard Spokes IIr. William Szymanski Mr. Paul Farrar Mr. Carl Lisman, Esquire SPOKES Ez OBUCHOWSKI ?a9 ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX. 2325 SOUTH BURLING'CON, VERMONT' 05402 RICT-iPRG A. SPOKES 1775 WfLUSPON ROAl7;a , :'✓,' .: JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSK[ TELEPHONE (802) 863 2857 August 1, 1979 A +' Carl H. Lisman, Esq. �* Lisman &'Lisman 191 college Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re Treetop { I I 4 , r � Dear Carl: r / n I'have the following comments in regard to the last drafts of Fa,s the Treetop legal documents which you'filed'through City Ha11: �7 1.) Phase I Bill of Sale. Some of the language in the first paragraph is traditional quitclaim language, and thus we would like the following paragraph: "Investors Corporation of Vermont hereby warrants to the.City of South Burlington that it is the sole owner of all property conveyed by this Bill of Sale." 2.) Phase II Bill of Sale. I don't believe we have received k` this document. Since some of the piping,,etc. is not yet installed, I would suggest you submit to us a Bill of Sale in the same format as the one being utilized for Phase I, along with an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. The City can accept a conveyance at,the point in time when every- thing is installed and completedto,the City's satisfaction wish make 3.) Agreemedocument boththis withinthat roadscertain oversWaiver. documen c entirenetworrk Phases. We, therefore, suggest that the first paragraphs k be'changed to read as follows: ' "KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,, that Investors Corporation of Vermont of South Burlington, Vermont ('"ICV") applied forandreceived, on Se tember 27 1977 and May 1 1979, final sub- r division approval for Phases I and II of ,its Treetop Development, so -called, -which includes a network of private roads having access, on to Kennedy Drive, all as depicted on a plan entitled1Ut gjfl':1 Carl If. Lisr-,an August 2, 1979 Page 2 "Treetop" dated September, 1977, revised December, 1978, May, 1979 and and which plan is recorded in Vo-Fu—me­ at Page of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington; and That the City of South Burlington, acting by and through its Planning Commission, is willing to permit access to Kennedy Drive over the network of private roads in the Treetop Development subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of approval of the private roads within the Treetop Development by the City of South Burlington..." Perhaps the terminology "right-of-way" in the remainder of the document should be changed to "Private roadways". A.) Offers of Dedication. I would suggest that since your exhibits are now outdated that perhaps you could attach un- executed copies of the deeds as exhibits. Once the above changes are made, the blanks filled in, and all of the documents properly executed, they should be sent to me for final review. If I have failed to mention anything, I am asking Steve Page, by copy of this letter to supplement my comments. Very truly yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS:mil cc: S. Page • Culvert Pipe Sales SEWER Contract HIGHWAY or WATER 2IIIIIIIIIIIIIF 625 HINESBURG ROAD — ZIP 0540 Hourly Rate 1 DIAL 862-6431 • Well Point System • Grodall • Dozers • Shovels Gentlemen: We are sending (L,) herewith ( ) under separate cover Job 77e- Contract No. % 71 Title of Submittal^ Csf/J'�pe/y Item & Section No. Location of Work Submittal No. Date Attention: / prints each of drawings Prepared by: zz zg C' r ( ) for approval ( ) for final approval ( ) -for information ( v�'for files ( ) returned approved/corrected Remarks: Very truly yours, RALPH B. GOODRICH, INC. By. � r A�c± SKILL •. /YEn��'.� *rf•ON{� ����y INno ITY 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN11111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111N111111 11111111111111111111IINI1111111111Iw1IiwNI11 INII IIIII IIIII INII IIIII IIIII IIIII IINI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNI 11111111111111t11111111111111111111N111 11111111111111111111111111111111111N111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIw11 IIIII IIIII II III IIIII I INI IIIII IN11 n111 IIIII Iu111N1111111111111111111111 w11 IIIIIINIIIINIIIIN 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI 1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI I111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN 1111111111111111111111111 1111l11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIi11111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111/ 1111111111 INN111111111111111 11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIN1111111 IIIIINIII1111111111 I I I I I N I 1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111 1111111111 lnll IIi111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIN 11/11/1111 NIII IIIII 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIt1111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 1111111/11 1111111/11 1111111/11 HIM IIIIIINII 1111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIu1111111 11111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 � �Ilplll HIIIIIIII Il1011gl 1■IIIIW YIYIIIIII■■IINI INYYIII■flllllll 11111MININIIIIIIII MINEIIIIIIIIIIIII flINBIN■iliIIIN 111111111111111 IIIIi1111111111 111111111111111 IHIIIIIII IIIIIIUII m1111111 IIIIIIIi1111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIi111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIi11 Iliil IHIi IUIIIIIII 1111111i11 111111111111111 IIIIIIIH111111 ImiHHIHill IilllHUi IIIIIIIIIIIi11111111 11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111 IIIIIIIHIIIIIIIHII 1111111111 Hilliiill 1111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl11 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111 N IIIII 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 ■�ne��nn���A�mu N�■Ig11111N111111HN111 11�■IIIIIIIIIII�IIIYIIIN u�■��n���n�uw■��w IRS INNIIIIIIINIIIII■ 111■NIN■�IIININRINII IIIeU11�111N11111111gNA1 111111111111i1111111 11111111111111111111 IIIIIi11111UI1i1111 1111111111 111/1/1111 11111111/1 1/111111/1 11/11111/1 INNNm IMMUNE 111/111/11 MII NIE 11INNIE 11INNIE 1111111111 NINIIIIIIIN1111a1�i 111111111111111 I m i I a n IIIN 11111111111m11N11 111111111111111111N11111 IIIN 1111111/1/ I N 1111111 IIIN IIIN IIN111111 aN1 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 11111111111111111111 INIIIIIIIIIIII 11111IIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIil11L1111 111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIH1111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH1111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111/ IIHI 111111111111111AHI 111111111111111 IINI IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII Iw1 nlH NI11 IIIII IHI� IIIII IIHI 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111IIIII 11111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII II11111111 Timm 111111111111111111111111111�11 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 I H I I I I I I I I H 1111111111111111 IHII111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 N11111111�111111111 ILIILIILHIILII IwI1iH111111 11111111111111111111 IIIIIIHII1111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 ��■u■u������um 111111//11 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi11111111 111111111111111 N111IH1111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI1111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIH111111111111111� IIH111111 IIIII IIIII IWI n111 H111111111111� IIIII IIHI HYII�111��■111■11�1■YNIII IIIII 1■■IIIYNI�N�II�INgI■II�IIIIYW �■u�w■��s�n�an�u��■■� ■�iu��iie�iii��a�iiui�■°�n ��nrw���ae�uu�eu�a■�uu�N HIHIHn 1111111111 IIi1111iB11111 IIIII IIIII IIIH 111111111111111 I11111111111111 111111111111111 11111111/1 1111/11111 1111111111 111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIHi11 N1111111111111 111111111111111 IIII11111111111 ME IIIIIIIIII 111E 1111111/11 IMMUNE 1111111111 ME 11111111�1 11111111�1 1111/11111 In1111111 Illilllili m111111i IIIIIIIIii Inn11111 111/1/1111 IIN1111IIMNM111111 1111111NiIimmimill lnil roil lint nili llillnnl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111111i1i IIIIIIIi1111111 11111IIIlilint IIIi111111111i1 IIIIIIIIIi11111 IIIIIIIIIi11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111 111111111111111 111111nii Innn11111111111n 11111111111111111111 IIINIIIIil111111111 Inillml 11111/1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIm IIIN1111111111111111111111111 mIN 1111111111IIIII IIIIIIIIiI IIIIIil111111111111111111111ii IIINIIii111111111111111111111 IIi1111111111111111111111NIi1 INIIIIIiIlI111111111111111i�1 011111111 mill ilill 11/1111111 111111111/ IIIIIIIIII111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI11111 11111111111111111 N I IIIII NIII11111 11111111111111111011 111111111111H1111H 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111111m111nt 111111111111111111111111111N1 1111111111111111111111H1 IINI 11111111111111111111111H11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHI 1111l1111111111111111111111111 111/111111 IIIIIIHII 11INNIE IMMEN11111111111 11111110111111111111 INN INN 111111111111 11/1111111 1/1111111/ 1//1111111 111111111111111 1111I1111111111 111111111111111 111111111110 HHI11111 11INNIE IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIII11111 1111111111111111111�11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInm1111�111111wINWN111 IN111111111111IN1� m111111� 1111111111111111111�111111111� 11111mN1 IIIIIIIIIIIi11111111 111111111�1111111111 ■�■NIIII■I�I�IIp11111111N1111flN11g1 111■NInN�11Y11■■IIIIIBIIIIIIIIIII■111■ ■I�I�NIRIIgiI■■dlll■�IIIIIIN■11� ■Ir1�1■Ig111Y1q■■1■IIIIIYYIIII■ RIflM1�111flIW1111N �NNI�IY��I 1■111111�111111■II IIIRII�I I�INNI I�IYIII Y�II�BBIIIIIIe■11■I�IIINYY��WN IINI�INI 11111/1111 111111111111111 111111111111111 N11111111 11111/1111 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR SUFDIVISION PERMIT 1. Applicant's Name, Address, and Phone Number TnVest-nrG Corporation of Vermnnt 100 Dor.&,$ Sr _ � Sn _ Burlington. Vt. 05452 863-2311 2. Name, Address, and Phone Number of the Person Whom the Commission should contact regarding this Application Vermont 100 Dorset St., So. Burlington,,V-t— 05452 3. Nature of the Development or Subdivision 240 unit apartment complex and 2 commercial lots. 4. Location of Development or Sul division Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. 5. High and Low elevations of the Tract of Land involved with the Development or Subdivision 340' and 290'. 6. Address of each of the Applicant's Offices in Vermont 100 Dorset St., So. Burlington, Vt_ 05492 . 7. Applicant's Legal Interest in the Property (Fee Simple, Option, Etc.) Fee Simple - 2 - 8. If the Applicant is not an individual, the Form, Date, and Place of Formation of the Applicant FORM: Corporation DATE: 8/72 PLACE: Burlington 9. Estimated Cost, Exclusive of Land Cost of the Development (Applicant for a Subdivision Need Not Lswer) 4,800,000 10. Application for a Subdivision, the Number of Lots 240 rental units 2 commercial lots. 11. What Restrictive Covenants are Planned for any Deed(s) to be issued? N/A 12. Description of the Proposed Development of Subdivision A. Plans and Specifications: (1) Attach a detailed plat or plot plan of the proposed project drawn to scale, showing the location and dimensions of the entire tract. This plan should also show: all lots, streets, roads, water lines, sewage systems, drain systems, buildings, existing or intended. (2) In subdivisions where individual water and sewage facilities are intended, indicate the proposed location(s). (3) Show all easements, parks, playgrounds, parking areas, water courses, and other bodies of water, natural or artificial, existing or intended. (4) Include a contour mazy of the land involved drawn on a scale of foot contour intervals. (5) Indicate on the plans the location and width of any easements for utilities, roads, etc., exist- ing or intended. Attach a written explanation of any such easements. -3- 13. What is the purpose of this Subdivision or Development and What is the intended use of the land after Subdivision or Development? Rental of Apartments and Office Space on the commercial lots. 14. Describe the Site of the Proposed Development or Subdivis- ion including information, if available, on Soils, Streams or Other bodies of Water, Bedrocks, Etc. See Separate report. 15. Acreage: A. Number of acres owned, or in which you have a legal interest Is s B. Number of acres in this project Im C. Number of acres previously developed 0 D. When do you anticipate beginning the project Spring 1976 E. When will this development or subdivision be completed 1980 16. Water System: A. What type of water system is to be provided, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, municipal system, etc. Municipal B. Where is the nearest municipal water system and is it available and feasible to use it? Williston Road Yes 17. Sewage System: A. What type of sewage disposal system is to be provided or intended, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, or municipal system? Municipal - 4 - B. Where is the nearest community sewage system and is it available and feasible to use it? Williston Road and will be extended up Kennedy Drive - Yes. C. If the sewage system is other than a community, municipal, or individual lot septic tank and leaching field, include competent professional engineering evidence that it will perform satisfactorily. 1F?. Adjacent Property: A. List below the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. Densmore Monument Co., Superican, Lums, Green Mountain Animal Hospital, Marvin Sheffield, Roostertail Restaurant, City of South Burlington, Dumont. B. What is the adjacent property used for at present? Residential and Commercial and Parkland. C. What is the future usage intended for the adjacent property? Residential, Commercial, Parkland. 19. Zoning: A. Which District or Districts is the proposed site with- in according to the official zoning map of the City? Residential - 7 units per acre Business Retail. DATE 12/27/76 SIGNA PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE NO. Filed: (Location) (Date) Signature of Coordinator/Com. Member 1. Name, address and phone number of the person seeking this permit? 863-2311 2. Name, address and phone number of the person to be contacted regarding this application? (Complete this only if different from #1 above.) Peter Judge 3. Describe the project briefly including its location, type, number of units, lots, etc. Indicate the high and low elevations and outline the tract of .._ z land on a county highway map and attach the map to this form. -240 unit multifamily complex on 36.1 acre site on Kennedy Drive, South Burlington. Project is divided into 3 clusters and will:be constructed in 3 phases. 4. Give the address of each of the applicant's offices in Vermont, if any. 100 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vt. 5. Does the applicant own the tract of land in fee simple? If not, what is the applicant's legal interest in the land, what is the name and address r. of the owner? Fee Simple When did the applicant acquire ownership or control of the land? August 1976 6. If the applicant is not applying as an individual, what kind of legal entity is the applicant filing as, e.g, partnership, corporation, etc., and the date and place the legal entity was formed. (Foreign corpora- tions must supply the date they registered with the Secretary of State for the State of Vermont, and the name of the person upon whom legal processes are to be served.) Corporation formed in August, 1972. 7. a. How many acres are in the entire tract of land? In answering this, include the total acreage of the landowner. 38.8 b. How many acres are directly involved in this project?--.36--:1 8. On the back side of this page, write in the names and addresses of all adjoining property owners. If you are not the landowner, list the names and addresses of all property owners adjoining the landowner's tract of land. 9. When do you plan to begin this project? Spring 1977 When will this project be completed? `Spring 19_80 10. Attach, when applicable, a copy of; restrictive covenants to be used in deeds, restrictive provisions set forth in leases, bylaws of condominium .:,?s,�ciations, or any other restrictions. -9- 11. Financing: 1 , a. Excluding the cost of the land, what is the total cost of the project? $5,000,-000= Applicants for subdivisions should include cost • ,1 of any improvements, such as roads, ponds, etc. b. how will this project be funded, what financing has been obtained, and what additional financing will be necessary? Permanent financi E urLL be secured throughout of state institution Cons njr-t'i nn_f;nanni ns V,-ll be local. c.If performance bonds will be required of contractors, attach details of the bonds. 12. What municipal services do you intend to utilize? x— police; x fire protection; ,x solid waste disposal; road maintenance; , x , sewage disposal; x water, supply; other. (explain). 1 13. Will this project involve any of tho (check those that apply-) PP y-) a. Fuel burning equipment c. Incinerators b. Process equipment d. Air pollution control equipment __.. NOTE: Complete 14 and 15 below only when instructed to do so by a district coordina- tor. 14. I/tire hereby certify and affirm under oath that I/we have notified by personal service or, by certified mail, return receipt requested, the parties entitled to notice of my/our application pursuant to 'title 10 VSA, §60E4, as follows: (Each of the parties get a complete application, including plans): 1 Mr. William Syzmanski, Manager City of so,# Burlington, Vt. 05401 Jame an dress of �un�c�pa sty Mr. William Wessell, Chairman Plannin _Commission South Burl* on Vt. 05401 Q e and Address o un�c�pal anning Con -mission) Mr. Arthur Hogan, Executive Director mottle den Count Re_i_o_n_a_l�Pla'rm Commission Pearl S' ame and A Tess o egioval Ja'lanning orrm�ss�on Vt. 05452 MEMORANDUM To: Curt Carter, District Environmental Coordinator From: Steve Paqe, Planning Assistant, City of South Burlington Re: Stipulation on A250 permits for T?rin Oaks and ICV apartment Pro-lects Date: October 16, 1977 A. Twin Oaks 1. We support the use of all water conserving_ devices as this will reduce the volume of waste to be treated at the Airport Parkway Sewage treatrgent plant. 2. We support the rearrangement of buildings which saves significant vegetation - a local review will be done to ensure that there are no conflictes in layout resulting from this change. 3. We ask that subsequent review of school, road, and sewer system capacities for phases II and III be conducted by the District Commission onlv if unforeseen circumstances arise and onlv if the City requests such a review.' 4. Ve request stipulations compatible vTith the l0llo:7ing schedule (per local subdivision approval): - Phase i construction to begin prior to 7/1/78 and to be completed by 1/1/79. - Phase II construction to begin bet.ieen 1/1/79 and 7/1/79 and completion by l/1/80. - Phase III construction to begin between l/1/80 and 7/1/80 and completion by 1/1/81. B. ICV 1. We ask that subsequent review of school, road, and sewer system capacities for phase II be conducted by the Zistrict Com- mission only if unforseen circumstances arise and only if the City requests such a review. 2. T e request stipulations compatible with the following schedule (per local subdivision approval): - Phase I constructi-n to begin prior to 3/27/78 anc to be completed by 1/l/79. - Phase II construction to begin between 1/l/7-- and 7/1/70 and to be completed b_T 1/1/81. M E M Q R A D A? U M To: South rurlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planning .- ssi:."tant Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items Date: September 2F, 1977 1.) !CV �Partments The changes to the final plat were described to you under a cover memo dated 9/9/77. It bears repeating that the new plan is a substantial improvement over the previous one in terms of impact on the site as well as municipal services. A revised phasing schedule, which calls for the units to be built in two phases, over a 3 ye-:,.r period, is being proposed - I see little or no difference in impact on municipal services resulting from this change. The developers. have met with Bill Szymanski and Jim Godette and have msolved the concerns over water and supply and fire protectic-n. I will have a motion prepared to cover details which need to be resolved prior to the start of construction, including a final landscaping evaluation, after, site work is completed. M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission and Mr. Peter Judge From: Zoning Administration Office Re: I.C.V. Apartments, Kennedy Drive Date: September 9, 1977 This office has reviewed the revised plan submitted by Mr. Peter Judge. Be advised that the plan is in conformance with all provisions of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Bonds, agreements, waivers involved with this project will be subject to review by the City Attorney -and properly executed prior to the issuance of a permit. • M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planning Assistant Re: ICV Revised Plat Date: September 9, 1977 The enclosed letter is self explanatory. This revision will be formally reviewed at a public hearing, September 27, 1977. The purpose of the work session is simply to familarize the Commission with the proposed changes. The proposed changes reduce the impact on municipal services as well as on the site itself. The bulk of the review necessary is "in house", for such things as engineering details, legalese, etc. L G� Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street Mr. William B. Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission City Hall South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Mr. Wessel, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2311 September 7, 1977 During the past several months, following approval of our apart- ment project by the South Burlington Planning Commission, we have continued to develope information relative to the site. Following completion of a contour survey by our engineers, Webster Martin Inc., it became apparent that the actual topography is somewhat different from that depicted by the photogrammetric data on which we previously relied. As you can see by the accompanying site plan, the land has some pronounced features which have dictated some revisions in our proposed development. Moreover, the steeper grades on the site define lines of demarcation between mature woods and new growth and this has also created the need for some changes. For these reasons, among others, and at considerable expense, we have retained a landscape architect, The Site Concern, to assist us in making better use of our site. The attached plan is a result. We believe that this revised plat more closely relates to the concerns and requirements expressed in both the Sub -division and Zoning Ordinances and is a considerable improvement over the prior effort. The following changes are significant: MAJOR CHANGES A. Reduction of size of project from 220 two bedroom units to 188 two bedroom units. B. Altered phasing schedule (see attached). C. One curb cut required. OTHER CHANGES A. A greatly expanded cul-de-sac to improve access for emergency vehicles and facilitate resident access to units. B. Parking is much nearer to units served. C. Recreation facilities are more centrally located. D. Open area for recreation ( playing ball, frisbee, etc.) E. Sewer manholes placed in road ways. In addition to the above, the following site planning considerations have been important elements in the re -design: 1. Since the buildings have been pulled back from the steep banks, cutting and filling has been minimized. The tighter development will necessitate clearing only a 120 foot strip through the forest. 2. Most buildings will now enjoy a favorable south west orientation. This will have a beneficial impact on both the quality of the units and energy conservation. 3. Some space has been left open for recreation. 4. Units have been positioned to preserve the mature trees in the area. Accordingly, we hereby request your favorable consideration for the ammended site plan. It is our hope that this might be done ex- peditiously in order that we can begin construction of Phase I this fall. Thankyou for your consideration. Very truly yours, Peter J e PJ:mmk Enclosure Schedule of Building Phases Former Schedule Phase I Begin Construction End Construction Phase II Begin Construction End Construction Phase III Begin Construction End Construction 64 units 2 Tennis Courts Kennedy Drive Water Line Williston Road Sidewalk *1977 1978 72 units Swimming Pool Nature Trails 1978 1979 84 units Cxx pity Building Nature Trails 1979 1981 * or within 6 months of Act 250 approval, weather permitting. New Schedule 60 units 2 Tennis Courts Kennedy Drive Water Line Completed 32 units Swimming pool Nature Trails 96 units Comity Building Nature Trails State of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation Srtate Geologist P' December 10, 1998 j Wendy LaPine i GreatScapes, Ltd. P.O. Box 1069 Jericho Center, VT 05465-1069 Dear Wendy: AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Wastewater Management Division 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Telephone #(802) 879-5656 Subject: Certification of Compliance 4CO258-1; Treetop II Condominiums, Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, VT. Our office has received a construction completion report from your consultant, Webster -Martin Consulting Engineers dated December 10, 1998 for the rehabilitation work on the sanitary sewers to reduce the amount of infiltration into sewer collection system. This letter, together with the letters dated September 15, 1998 and March 13, 1998, satisfies Condition #4 of the above referenced permit. Thank you for your close attention to the permit conditions. Please contact me should you need anything further. Sincerely, Ernest Christianson Regional Engineer c City of South Burlington Webster -Martin Consulting Engineers Notice of Incomplete Application The application of --i -'v owner, developer, or applicant f or C�-���1 J l s101y—F-11"(„�L_ site plan review, subdivision review, right o way approval, etc. under section(s) Z ©� of the municipal SJ 5C>IJ �1tOt. regulations was received by this office (zoning, subdivision)' ' -7 77 ate This application is incomplete because: 04. Applicant's Option - Please read the options described below and sign as appropriate A. You may resubmit this application, with the deficiencies corrected, within 10 days, in which case it will be re- viewed at the next regularly scheduled planning commis- sion meeting (the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month). date App icant's signature B.0 As an alternative to resubmitting your application with the deficiencies corrected, you may have your application processed as presented, in which case, the Planning Commission will be given a copy of this notice. ate Applicant s signature '/ PLANNING C014MISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1977 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 1977 in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. Members Present William Wessel, Chairman; Sidney Poger, David Morency, Kirk Woolery, Janes Ewing Members Absent Frank Lidral, Ernest Levesque Others Present Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Dave Krieger, Free Press; Peter Judge, Paul Sprague, ICV; Pat Iafrate, Bill Schuele- The 'meetink was called. -to `,order' by Chairman -Wessel at .7:40 p_m. -_ Continuation of Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat Application of Investors Corporation of Vermont A revised plat of the proposed development was shown. Revisions included a walkway along the stream, the sidewalks for the later phases, the location of the pool and community buildings, and an adjacent lot line. Mr. Ewing asked if the agreement concerning the curb cut had been made with Mr. Dumont._ Mr. Judge replied that it was still a verbal agree- ment,_not a formal one, because he had not yet had time to meet with Mr. Dumont to work out a location and other details. He said that he expected Mr. Dumont to be in agreement, however. Prompted by a question from Mr. Page, several points were discussed. Mr. Judge said that they had been thinking about creating a pond by digging near, not damming up, the stream which runs through the property. He said that there were three reasons that they had been considering this action. It would 1) create aesthetic interest, 2) be incorporated into the recreation area, and 3) possibly serve as a holding pond for storm drainage. It was agreed that this action would have to be discussed with several other boards, such as Water Resources. The question of where the public access to the pedestrian trails would be was also brought up and it was suggested that the office building parking lot might be a good place since the public would be wanting access on the weekends. Following a short discussion of site plan changes, e,r. Poger moved thn_t the South Burlington PlenninP Commission Approve the Preliminary Plat forInvestors Corporation of Vermont. as depicted on a Plan entitled, "Site Plan -Kennedy Drive Apartments for ICV " This approval is based on positive findings reached by the Commission under the 14 general standards for PUD evaluation and the specific standards for RPUD evaluation These findings and approvals are 2) continent upon the f tions: 1) The following drafting correc ions shall be madeprior to warning for !/c ea a of the three lots earer arcation of existing wooded area ncroac ent at northeast corne ar in s alls, aislewidths and roa s o c nsi aisle widths to be at least 2 re are 2 rows of arkin relocate ar ing shelter fro how deceleration lane- aT--entranc22 indicate place hittenden County Trans- ��ortatj_iT-_LU42-itv bggstoRdin Bruce Hau hten's approval,dhow rear lot line for lot # how intersection of ICV. Dumont. Ci v 2) The siting of all buildingsparking area ctures shall be in accord with the recommendations of IZe County Forester"A*i Soil Conservation Service so as to minimize the windthrow hazard and to insure that soils with developmental limitations are avoided i.e. unstable, high water table, or springs). 3) The design, layout, -and specifications of utilities,- such as _ water, seweri and storm draina-ge;= as well -as roadways, shall -be-revi-ewe-d-.- and a proved b the CityEn ineer talon into account the comments of the -fire chief memo dated 2 2 77 ,-prior-to warning for final plat approval. 4) The School Board must certify the ability of'the City's schoo system to accomodate the school aged children anticipated from the entire project, or any phases thereof. 5 The foiloxin� documents must be submitted prior to warning for _ _ final plat approval: a) draft of easement for-ccommon use of westerly curb cut. b) draft of easement for common use of single curb cut to lots 1 & 2. c) draft of a dedication for a strip of land along Williston Road. d) draft of pedestrian easement, to connect Kennedy Drive to Citv Park land. e) necessary utility easements � 6) The final plat shall sFox the particular arens of the plat which relate to the documents described above. 4,,J;) C`j' 7 The exact location of the westerly access shall be e by the City Engineer. The applicant shall make this curb cut available to the abuttor for access purposes. without restrictions. and for a nominal fee (i.e. z1.00). "or- �YKj /' 8) A sidewalk shall be extended, continuing from Kennedy Drive across the entire Williston Road frontuFe. A07- �� 3) 9) A developmental timetable, spi�c`ifying the start and completi dates for construction of buildings and site improvements shall be submitted prior to warning, for final plat approval. 10 All phases of the project are subiect The motion was seconded by'Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Reconsideration of proposed comprehensive plan amendments returned by City Council with comments). Mr. Wessel gave some background on this subject, saying that the pro- posed amendments had been sent to the City Council, but that they had not acted on them and had, instead, merely commented. He explained that the failure to act constituted disapproval and that they (the Planning Commission) would have to begin again. fir. -rage had attended the City Council meeting and so was asked what the issues were. He replied that the major confusion was in regard to the role of Williston Road. Was it a through street or a "+o"-street, providing access to abutting properties? At this point Mr. Morency and Mr. Poger agreed that they would like a_ - letter covering the disapproval -and the reasons for it-.- They felt--that-==-- the=City-Council should specify -:hat -they did not -like so that the Planning Com-Mission could deal. with it. =-1Ir. -Ewing -agreed.-_=_ Mr. Morency moved that they request the City -Council to reply -in writing, with their considered judemeht,to the South Burlington Planning Com- mission's letter of November Op 1976 regarding the amendments to the transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. The motion was seconded by Yr. Poger and passed unanimously. Committee Reports Before the Committee Reports, Xr. Pat Iafrate spoke to the Planning___ Commission about building -a model of traffic flow in,South Burlington with the object- of. aiding- in the decision -making process. It would be done with the aid of a computer. Mr. Iafrate offered his time on a part-time basis and said that he would try to obtain free computer time if possible. He explained that he would start with a simple intersection and work up from there, with the rate of growth depending on his time and the computer time. With the aid of such a model, the Planning Commission could more easily assess the impact of certain actions.on traffic flow. Mr. Iafrate said the cost of a CPU minute is approximately $7.00 and that,a typical run might take 30 minutes. The first couple of times would need polishing, too, he said, so that you could easily get to three times that figure before you had a "clean" program. He pointed out, however, that once the model was built, it would be good forever if it were kept up to date. 14r. Woolery asked what the program was, and :fir. Iafrate replied that it was GPSS, or General Purpose Simulation System, and is used to evaluate any kind of flow, whether objects or people. Mr. Morency asked how one could verify the model, and I•ir. Iafrate replied that it would be checked against the actual conditions. Mr. Morency then asked how valid it was and how well it could be defended. Mr. Iafrate said that he really did not know, but he couldn't validate it 100,;�. P� � �• �-. tier. ��� �-�� � �` ��� �� ��%�-r,�.��, � '�IU,<,t �,�-, w-�'? 4-�ts ---- E �}�--. E(�.�� '�•--cam-- ;� --�--� __ _ • i p w Tc, 5 -- LOUIS LISMAN BERNARD LISMAN ROBERT E. MANCHESTER CARL H. LISMAN ALLEN D. WEBSTER Mr. Peter Judge Investors Corporation of Vermont 100 Dorset Street Burlington, Vermont Dear Peter: LISMAN & LISMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 191 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 October 5, 1978 TREEiOr CONDOMINIUMS MAILING & STREET DESIGNATIONS 802-664-5756 In connection with this matter, I have reviewed your letter, dated October 2, 1978, to Stephen Page, the South Burlington City Planner. I find no conflict with the proposals set forth in that letter, on the one hand, with the provisions of the Declaration of Condominium and the Vermont Condominium Ownership Act. The Act requires the Declaration to designate, by number, letter or combination thereof, each Apartment. The Declaration of Condominium does that. The proposal to designate eadh�ot,,the Apartments for a different purpose, namely to satisfy the postal service, creates no problem under the co�dominium.,law or the Declaration. Very truly yours, Carl H. Lisman CHL:ces cc: Mr. Stephen Page Planner City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street Mr. Stephen Page Planning Assistant City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05401 RE: Kennedy Drive Project Dear Steve, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2311 January 26, 1978 We have plotted the pedestrian easement, as outlined by your surveyers, on the master plan for our project. For the most part it appears satisfac- tory, but at one point the trail meanders extremely close to some of our units. I should like to meet with you (and with your surveyer, if possible) in order to discuss the trail and see if we might alter the location slightly. Would you please give me a call if you can arrange this. Sincerely, f Peter Judge PJ :nmk M E M O R A N D U M To: Dick Spokes, City Attorney From: Steve Page, Planning Assistant Re: ICV Pedestrian Trail Date: November 8, 1977 As you know, ICV will be offering the city a pedestrian easement across its land. The easement roughly parallels Potash Brook and extends from Kennedy Drive westerly to the city owned conservation area, Mayfair Park Woods. The pathway is about to be surveyed and will be incorporated into the final subdivision plat for recording. Before such an ease- ment is accepted by the Council, the following matters should be re- solved, and will make the process of securing future pedestrian ease- ments that much easier: 1) Liability of landowner for personal injury to pedestrian on a public easement. 2) Use regulations - 3) Enforcement of use regulations - motorbikes, vandals, self- styled Paul Bunyans, etc. potentially a severe problem. 4) Development and maintainence of pathways - how much physical site work will actually take place? 5) Bail out - or renewal clause may be desirable if enforcement or property abuse problems are insurmountable. 6) Compatibility with agreement - i.e., water or power line easements. Dick, I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. Also, I enclosed an excerpt of an ASPO publication, "Planning for Urban Trails", which may be of some help. P. 0. }30x 132 Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 September 27, 1977 Tyr. Peter Judge Investors Corporation of Vermont 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Peter: I have reviewed the revised plans for the apartment complex on Kennedy Drive and make the following; continents about the landscaping: - If the clearing limit (as represented by the dotted line) is established in the field, more of the existing vetretation will be preserved than in the original plan. More important, those areas shown to remain undisturbed are realistic. - The philosophy of clearing, and re-plantjnf-� is much more practical than trying to save individual trees or small groups. - There are trees around the cul-de-sac which are represented as existing trees to be protected and saved, however, the water, sewer and walkWay plans are in conflict vrlth the stipulation of "no heavy epuipment within 20 feet". - The species choice in the landscape plan are primarily native trees and shrubs - an obvious and refreshing deviation from the typical Chittenden Cotmty landscape plan. Most of the viburnurLs exist as "abandoned pasture" plants in the County and could successfu7l% be transplanted to the site. - Redbud and scarlet oak are not known to be winters -hardy in t;u;s area. If I can be of further assistance, don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Russell S. Reay ��7 ••vile -_f. 9/27/77 SSP S-'GGESTED MOTIO-N' Cnr A'`.'hC`V'.L - REVISED PL1,1' ICV I move that the South Eurlington Planning Commission approve the final plat application of ICV Corporation, whic.i is a revision of the application approv-d 5/4/77 and 6/2F/77, for an apartment project of 1'P two bedrooms units, as shown on a plan entitled "Apart- ments - Kennedy Drive" drawn by the Site Concern, subject to the following stipulations: 1) The required bonds for landscaping, u�_ilities, and other site improv-ments shall be posted prior to issuance of building hermits. 2) The final plat to be recorded shall show the following: All three lots, access easement for lots 1 & 2, emergency access to Kenr::edy Drive as agreed ur)on, the number and location of c.ydrants as agreed upon, outdoor lighting, bus stop, additional \V44446/4-�(jto Kennedy Drive, a l utility easements, an(,. the pedestrian easement. 3) Construction drawings and specifications for all required improvements shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 4) final plut, incorporating the conditions of final approval, small be recorded, after review and ap^•roval by the Planning c`Issist.ant. 5) The City Attorneys certificate that all required legal documents are satisfactory, shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6) Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Phase II or Phase III, the Commission may find, after a duly warned public hearing, th:,.t the construction of the pro,)osed phase will exce,.d the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disr_,osal, educational, and highway services due tc the anticipated residents in the phase proposed, and may alter or rescind its approval as based on those finc.ings. 7) The phasing schedule shall be as described in a letter to William Wessel from Peter Judge, dated 9/7/77. 8) A recreation fee of �2946 shall be paid in proportion to the number of hermits issued at the time they are i:;sued. 9) This approval eypires 6 months from this date for Phase I, 6 months from July 1, 1476 for Phase II, and 6 months from July 1, 1979 for Phase III. 10) i final review of the 96 "back" units, in terms of buil-?ing Suggested Motion of ;-)Proval - Revis d Final Plat ICV Page 2 location, parking and circulation, utili+-ies, and landscaping, by the Planning Commission, shall be a prere(;uisite to issuance of ay phases after phase I. 11) Credit for existing vegetation shall be as determined by the Tree Planting Committee or the County Forester; the landsc_,r,ing plans for the "back:" (96) units shall be reviewed and approved by the Tree Planting Committee or County Forester. `�eter Judge September F, 1977 Deed and offer of irrevocable decicaticn for the pedestrian easer.ent an(' the strip cf land along ,i-7.-I.iston Road.. — llriv-ate ro,-:;d and ,Iaiver agreei.,,,ent for the oroject. — Bonds or escrow - Treement for lands( -a --ping, sewer, water work, etc. 4) :iscellanecus 74ands-ap`!nF, may be rev-Jewed, at your convenience, p for to occupancy - please tell us your unit construct-1-on costs so oje calculate the reouired a ount of iandsc.,,r)ing. proportionately, to $'�)9L,6, ba,,_;ed recreation fee is reduced, on 1PF'units . — I assume layout of ned.estr-i.an e!:,Ise7,ent is un:if`e!,t_�d. — _Lhe final n1r"t, for recor0ing, to show the, b-,it'-rc rone_rty (cotoursc.!,n be ortnitted). -,, �2,et ariount of bondin ...,ith X. J . IE . if ossible, prior to ..e ar ing, Very truly, Aephen Page 'banning s s i :34 .nt S, P/mc g eptumber F 1 1977 � 7 i° I r 'e t e r J u IN i-,on<,A.ructi-n Uo,�inany 100 Dorset tr et South D'urlington, Vermont 05401 Fe: Revised lan - ICV artr;ents De �x .'eter: "o expe dite the review of your revised final ri-,t y the Con-ir-Assion, I sui-gest the fnlIowin,c--: 1) Chan,-fes to the Mat Show bus sV^n to be constructed .At entrance. '.d d c! nstructi-n scijedulr, chowin;;` ^.� unit:.s, bedrooms Der unit, and other site I OW -I :ant.- for t. e t-,r,:le phses, along ,.,ith dates. ---how -ParlKing., c nt,-urs- (51v.a1_.):,"cr the "Iac'1-11 un-Its. Show outdoor li,,hting "how additic-nr-1 walways tr- Kennedy Drive. 2) Zurporting documents Utters from County -,--,n,, conserv-tt-,--.-,n rnF,tirding sitir-112 of "back" buil,",im-:.-s. 1 Clef-rances -from, Jim GoudeGoulette(hydr-.,--nts , loo-, - " " - 0 1 �cy access, building separations) p,, artions) and mill S-zy,.'.ans'C�i (v.,ater, sewer, curbin'r-', Storm d.-ainare, design 6 specs). 3) IL.;e-.alese � - legal dociuMents are nec(-�----I.ry: come riinor chan,-.es to tlie -, I have e-clos,�d sc,!:.e f(-,rri,s to 14 d your attorney in re- , - drf t i n the followinr paper-crk will be needod prior to issuance of a.,.y permits: Jul; 1 ~. � ,t r Ju!'-'Ie Investors Cor oral Uion o1` Verr,;ont 100 corset Street Sow'k"h r3url._nnton, Vermont '" 01 Near Peter: T**zis is to form lly conf i rrr; the <, ction o ' the mouth I?.urlington Gom:; .lssion in a, -proving your applic ,-,.-ion arr.rowl For phases Ii . nc: III of t1e ar,t rtr: e n t ^: oject on June 14 � 1977. The fm notes of t is r;-reet`n:-, are enclosed, s-;eci y the conciiti ,ns o zinc-tl rl- t arr.roval. 11hese Con:?'_t1:::rlS, nlus the re%"al Cr'.F'iltS of the subJ;--vision re ul _ ns _ .h :re rli _ .ble to a proves-' fin4:l �1.:a t , must, be tc the iSsu�':rnce or= ny l�uildin� c.r its. Col' -F C.n' rilio5tions. Y;-.urs , Stej,hon aqe s .,iStE:nt , l�no Officer .,P/rncg 1 ?nCl 5) PLANNING COMMISSION DUNE 14, 1977 the final plat application of Mr. Urban Wheelock for a one lot residential subdivision, as depicted on the plan of record, dated April 19, 1977, undated, unsigned, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The lot shall be surveyed and lot corner markers set. 2. The easement deed, for access to Swift Street, shall be submitted to the City Attorney for his approval 15 days prior to the issuance of a building permit. The purpose of this easement is to insure that there will be adequate sight distance for the proposed lot, and to minimize fhe ultimate number of curb cuts onto Swift Street in this vicinity. 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be required on the pedestrian easement. 4. Perc tests shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The motion was seconded by lMr. Ewing. Sharon Wheelock asked that the survey be waived. The notion passed unanimously. Public hearin.- on f inal plat application of ICV Construction Comvanv for phases II 72 units and III (84 units) of a 3 phase 220 unit project off Kennedy Drive, Messrs. Judge, :iprayreven, and Lamphere T.-Ir. Lamphere explained what had been done since the last meetinE, and Mr. Judge said that phase I needed landscaping approval and that they were asking for final approval of the other two phases. Ile explained what would be constructed in each phase, and said that they had been in contact with the Soil Conservation people, who said that they should preserve clumps of trees in order to minimize the windthrow risk. As far as the sever capacity, Mr. Lamphere sc:id that Kr. Szymanski's fiEures -r:ere based solely on flow and that there are other factors to consider. l:r. Judge said that they needed to have approval for all phases of the project because of the nature of the plan (the water line forms a loop, for example) and that much time and money had already been spent on the project. fie said that they had not materially changed their plan since last year when they got sketch plan approval. Mr. Sprayregen said that he felt that the City should insure that they had adequate capacity for this project, and Mr. Villa said that phase III will not be renting until 1982, 2 years after the scheduled upgrading of the sewage plant. i-:r. 1.orency pointed out that the voters might reject the improvements. Mr. P.ozendaal said that hefelt that this was a reasonable phasing schedule that fit into the planned growth of the City and he would like to see it approved since the Commission had several legal devices available to stop the building if the plant reached capacity. Mr. Veve said that he hoped the Commission would be fair in its allocation of sewer capacity. :4r. Xorency explained that ICV had been one of the first developers kantin; to build this year, but that unfortunately the whole problem of providing adequate City services had come up, and that the easiest of these to measure was the sewage. He said that phase 1 of ICV had been approved and that the Commission would probably give phases 2 and 3 approval subject to coring in 6) PLANNING CODM'ISSION JUTS: 14, 1977 before building so that the Commission can look at sewers, schools, and the traffic problem. Mr. Judge said that they had given the Commission memos on all of these problems and that because of the way the project was configured, they needed certain knowledge that they could build phase 2. Mr. Rozendaal asked if they would be agreeable to having the project approved with the stipulation that they be reviewed before building, and was told that that would be reasonable if their project were taken into consideration with the others. 1.r. Rozendaal said that he felt that the City had a responsibility to build facilities to a ccomoda.te growth. Mr. Levesque moved that the Planning Commission approve the whole project tonight contingent on occupancy in 1982 based on the evidence presented._ The motion was seconded by Mr. Rozendaal, who said that it worked a hard- ship on people if the Commission used the sewer issue to deny approval in a blanket fashion. Mr. .1essel said that this motion did not include a lot of the things that are usually included in a motion, so Xr. Levesque amended it to add that Stephen Page prepare the necessary documents to cover the items agreed on in phases 2 & 3. I;r. Rozendaal seconded the amendment. I-lessrs. Rozendaal and Levesque voted aye, the others voted nay, and the motion failed. The Commission instructed i•Ir. Page to draw up a motion. I•lr. Levesque moved to put ICV on the agenda two weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7:30. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion and it passtd unanimously. Public hearinf: on preliminary plat application of I:erlin Corporation for a 2 lot commercial subdivision at 1 - 5 Dorset Street, IYir. Ed Smith Mr. Smith showed the Commissioners plot plans slowing the areas to be effected in colored pencil. He said that the State was willing to trade pieces of land with them which would allow the City to widen Dorset St at the intersection with Williston Road. lie said that there would be a one-way entrance to the Motor Lodge and that he had asked for, and expected to receive, permission from the Fund Corporation to exit onto their land near the Red Coach Inn. The Commission read a letter dated June 14, 1977 from Bruce Houghton, Transportation Engincer with the Regional Planning Commission, concerning the problem and proposed solution. Mr. Wessel pointed out that the letter said that if everything approved were built, even with the planned improvements to the intersection, the situation would remain the same. Mr. Smith said that he was not sure how much better the situation could be made than what has been proposed by Eerlin, and he felt that the re -doing of the traffic light sequence would make a large difference. Mr. Wessel said that the Commission had to look at the maximum use of the land and that if a very large restaurant went in and a lot of cars came at the same time, it could create a real problem. Mr. Smith said that he did not anticipate that much of a traffic flow. zr. ',vessel said that if the Commission allowed this, they ::i ht be straining the ability of the City to provide safe access, and I'.r. ""rith replied that the experts had worked it out and that he did not think that they could do a better job. He rc-iterated that he did not think that they ;could create that much traffic. He said that he % as proposing a very luxurious dining place which would be good for him and the City, since he felt that there was a need for this in South Burlington, and that there was not anything else like it in the comnunit�. Suggested motion of Approval June 23, 1977 Page II 9. The Citv Attorney's certificate that all required legal documents are satisfactory, shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. Layout and desin,n of storm drainac:'ie, curi>ing, fire hydrants and ether utilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11. An engineering ins ection fee (. x all costs excluding buildings and land shall be paid. ox,(/? ? T��h�, approval shall expire six (6 ) months fro,,-,-t pes`uant to Section 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations. 13. Prior to issuance of building or land devel meet permits for Phase II or Phase III, the Commission144 find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construction of the proposed phase will +4 exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewa,le disposal, educational, and highway services due to the antici atcd residents in the phase oronosedAIV A-4* 14. The number of units in each building shall be shown on the final plat. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Boom, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday,, 197_7, at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following: Copies of the _ are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William B. Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission notice to appear: �S AWL k 4 el /7 It .4 Y. i UA);e� lkttk 5 Lo 4"p,��,--, E Ni R A N D v 14 To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planning Assistant RE: ;Next Meeting's Agenda Items Date: June 10, 1977 1. Kilgore Tire - Mr.Kilaore will present ap alternative plan to the one approved, which will be installed on an interim basis, until an addition can be constructed (,to replace the existing trailer), and such time as he can afford to conform to the plan originally approved. Bonds should be posted for both the interim and final plans. 2. �heelock Subdivision - A survey should be required. 3. Trono Subdivision - A survey should be required. 4. Brand Condominiums - A revised plan was submitted Friday, June 10, 1977. I will have a memo on it reedy for t:e meeting. I have reviewed the traffic impact of this project based on evening peak hour figures for the two nearest intersections and estimates of the anticipated traffic from other projects proposed in the immediate vicinity. The capacity of the two adjacent intersections appears to by bdequate, based. oon_ the lWi-ted- info= Qmation available. I will have an opinion from Dick Spokes prior to the meeting as to whether preliminary approval may be granted pending adequate sewage capacity becoming available. Jim Goddette says he would prefer a 20' graveled roadway extending through to Dorset Street, as opposed to a temporary cul- de-sac, for the roadway associated with Phases I and II of the project. 5. ICV Apartments Reg Thomrson of the Soil Conservation Service has indicated he is satisfied with the layout of Phases Il and III, insofar as soils are concerned. Russ Reay, Assistant County Forester, feels the windthr�v.✓ problem can be alleviated by perservingc3urps of existing trees, as opposed to individuals, and is willing to assist the developer and the City in identifying trees to be saved and how they should be protected. M E M 0 R A N D U Vi To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard VVard, Zoning Administration Officer Re: I.C.V. Apartment, final plan, phase I Date: June 9, 1977 1. Two structures located near Kennedv Drive do not conform to the minimum required setback of 75 feet. 4. Planting schedule does not detail the size of the material to be used, therefore this office is unable to determine the dollar amount involved. Minimum landscaping required would be $18,160 for phase I. 3. Credit should be applied t-wards existing trees which are to be saved. Exact dollar amount should be determined by the Tree Plantina Review Committee. 4. Precaution's are necessary to prevent damaging those trees which are to be saved, such as surrounding the trees with snow - fence. 5. Bonding requirements to be established by Mr. Szymanski. 6. Engineering inspection fee due at a rate of one-half of one per cent of all costs excluding buildings and land. ET: Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street Mr. Stephen Page Assistant Planning Officer City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Steve, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2311 June 1, /1977 This will acknowledge your letter of May 31, which we received in today°s mail and which included a copy of the appropriate portions of the May 24th meeting of the Planning Commission relating to our proposed apartment developement. Condition #10 notes that "This approval shall expire six (6) months from this date". Would you be kind enough to verify whether the operative date is that of May 24 or today, June 1, when we received the notice of approval. More importantly, since there are still some unresolved questions with regard to the entire project (specifically the question of final platt approval for Phases II and III), is it appropriate to start the clock running until the issue of these two phases has been resolved? As we have pointed out previously, the design of Phase I is conditioned upon the successful completion of Phases II and III. Such matters as our basic utility layout, road system, building locations, recreational amenities and location of fire hydrants must be altered if in fact Phases II and III are not approved. Would it not be possible to delay the enforcement of this time parameter until the hearing for subsequent phases is concluded and a decision rendered? Ve�__truly yo rs , Peter Judge PJ:mk - - -- - - -- -+ . --41 --- ---- - tip -oz -2 -/j -001- s -lj 5/18/77 Draft 3 SSP SUGGESTED .0TION OF APPROVAL - Phase I and Lot Layouts ICV Project I move that the South Burlington Planninq Commission approve the final plat application of Investors Corporation of Vermont for 3 lots and the first phase (64 units) of a 220 unit apart- ment complex, as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan - Kenned� Drive Apartments for ICV Corporation, South Burlington, Vermont, dated April 22, 1977, unsigned, subject to the following stip- ulations:: 1. Bonds for landscaping, utilities, and other required im- provements, in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer or Zoning Administrator shall be posted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Show easements for lots I and 2, utilities and pedestrian (located to higher ground) trail on final plat to be recorded. 3. Construction drawings shall be submitted to and an proved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The width of paved roadways shall be 27 feet, except 24 feet bet%-jeen two ad j :' ining rows of parking and properly delineated on the final plat to be recorded. 5. Phase I is considered to have site plan approval with the exception of a landscaping plan, which shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the Commission, after issuance of building permits andprior to issuance of certificates of occupa:)cy. 6. A final plat, incorporating the conditions of final app- roval, shall be recorded, after review and approval by the Planning ASsiS;ant. 7. A recreation fee (Based on a total of $3,447.00 for 220 units) shall be paid in proportion to the number of building permits issued, at the time of issuance. 8. The City Attorney's certificate that allrequired legal documents are satisfactory, shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9. Layout and design of storm drainage, curbing, fire hydrants and other utilities shalli be approved by the City Engineer. (1) Suggested 1,4otion of Approval May 18, 1977 Page II 10. This approval shall expire six (6) months from this date, persuant to Section 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations. (prior to issuance of building or land development permits for phase II, and Phase 111, the Commission must find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construction of the proposed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal, educational, and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed). Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street Mr. Stephen Page Planning Assistant City Hall So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Steve, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2311 May 17, 1977 Enclosed please find an acknowledgement of a notice of incomplete application in conjunction with our recent appli- cation for final plat review for Phases II and III of our apartment project. As I have indicated, we will provide the additional information within the next ten days. With regard to the item which points out that no recommendations have been made by the County Forester and Soil Conservation Service, I think that this has been covered in previous testimony. Jim Lamphere has been working with Russ Reay with the intention of preserving the important trees on the site. The Soil Conservation Service has walked over the whole area with us and has made no recommendation. I don't know what else we can do. Would you be so kind as to inform us of the date for our hearing. Very truly yours, Pete/udgE�� PJ:mk Enclosure Notice of Incomplete Application The application of I.C.V. owner, developer, or applicant for Subdivision, Final Plat Review Phases II $ III site plan review, subdivision review, right of way approval, etc.7 under section(s) 204 of the municipal Subdivision regulations was received by this office zoning, sub ivision 5/10/77 a e This application is incomplete because: 1. Reauired Submissions are lapkina I-&- y ,.LG.. 1 7 / date Ass't Zoning A mini rative 0 icer Applicant's Option - Please read the options descri and siqn as annronriate A.*-J You may resubmit this application, with the deficiencies corrected, within 10 days, in which case it will be re- viewed at the next regularly scheduled planning commis- sion meeting (the second nd-_- urth Tue ays of each month) . /A A date cant i s ,signature B.0 As an alternative to`�esubmitti(ng your application with the deficiencies corrected, you may have your application processed as presented, in which case, the Planning Commission will be given a copy of this notice. ate Applicant's signature 5/13/77 SSP SUGGESTED MOTION OF APPROVAL - Phase I and Lot Layout of ICV Project I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final plat application of Investors Corporation of Vermont for 3 lots and the first phase (64 units) of a 220 unit apart- ment complex, as depicted on a plan entitled "Site Plan - Kennedy Drive Apartments for ICV Corporation, South Burlington, Vermont," dated April 22, 1977, unsigned, subject to the following stip- ulations:; 1. Bonds for landscaping, utilities, and other required im- provements, in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer or Zoning Administrator shall be posted prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Show easements for lots 1 and 2, utilities and pedestrian (located to higher ground) trail on final plat to be recorded. 3. Construction drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The width of paved roadways shall be 27 feet, except 24 feet between two adjoining rows of parking and properly delineated on the final plat to be recorded. 5. Phase I is considered to have site plan approval with the exception of a landscaping plan, which shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the Commission, after issuance of building permits and prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 6. A final plat, incorporating the conditiDnsof final app- roval, shall be recorded, after review and approval by the Planning Assistant. 7. A recreation fee (Based on a total of $3,447.00 for 220 units) shall be paid in proportion to the number of building permits issued, at the time of issuance. 8. The City Attorneys certificate that all required legal documents are satisfactory, shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9. Layout and design of storm drainage, curbing, fire hydrants and other utilities shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (1) 10. Persuant to sect. 14.30 of the Zoning Regulations, this approval shall expire 6 months from the date of its issuance, unless the Commission determines, at a duly warned public hearing, that there has been adequate evidence of intent to pursue Phase I of the project. 11. Prior to issuance of building or land development permits for Phase II, as well as Phase III, the Commission must find, after a duly warned public hearing, that the construction of the pro- posed phase will not exceed the City's ability to provide adequate sewage disposal and highway services due to the anticipated residents in the phase proposed. Notice of Incomplete Application The application of I.C.V. owner, developer, or applicant for Subdivision, Final Plat Review Phases II $ III site plan review, subdivision review, right of way approval, etc. under section(s) 204 of the municipal Subdivision- regulations was received by this office zoning, sub ivision 5/10/77 ate This application is incomplete because: 1. Required Submissions are lacking Other requested or a shown See Attached sheet / /,) ncOU. ,,� ra May 12, 1977 Steohpa date Ass't Zoning�Admint� rative Officer Applicant's Option - Please read the oRtions described be and sign as annrooriate A. You may resubmit this application, with the deficiencies corrected, within 10 days, in which case it will be re- viewed at the next regularly scheduled planning commis- sion meeting (the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month). ate Applicant's signature B.0 As an alternative to resubmitting your application with the deficiencies corrected, you may have your application processed as presented, in which case, the Planning Commission will be given a copy of this notice. ate Applicant s signature 5/12/77 I Required Submission s which are lacking: 1. Location of required improvements: Sewer laterals Storm drainage and rough grading Fire hydrants Construction drawings, including profiles II Conditions of Preliminary Approval not complied with: 1. Roadways shown to scale 2. Recommendationsof County Forester and Soil Conservation Service regarding siting of buildings, parking areas, and other structures. 3. Storm drainage for Phases II 8 III has not been re- viewed by the City Engineer. 4. Show easement serving lots 1 8 2 as well as utility easements. III Other Changes:: 1. Relocate pedestrian easement to the west. 2. Building seperations to be the same in Phase II 8 III as in Phase I. 3. Sewer line is too close to structures for an adequate easement. 4. Your plan shows 208 Units, as best I can determine. Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 May 10,1977 Mr. Stephen Page Planning Assistant City Hall So. Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Steve, (802) 863-2311 Enclosed please find our complete application for final plat approval for Phases II and III of our proposed apart- ment complex on Kennedy Drive. We have depicted on the plat those changes required by the City Engineer. We are applying for approval to construct Phase II (72 units) during the years 1978 and 1979. Phase III (84 units) approval is being requested for the years 1979-1981. Should you have any questions or comments with regard to our plat, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, eter Judge PJ:mk Enclosure M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: ICV, 435, TWIN OAKS APARTMENT PROJECTS DATE: MAY 5, 1977 Since the last session of the public hearingson these pro- jects, the applicants for all three have met with myself and Bill Szymanski to resolve descrepancies in the plats. The current status of the plans is as follows: I. ICV - FINAL PLAT 1) The applicant has agreed to the City Engineer's recommendations on turn arounds, water & sewer line location (including looping), location -and number of hydrants, storm drainage, and curbing. 2) Road width, and the linking of phases 1 & 2 must be decided by the Commission. 3) The required legal documents are in the City Attorney's hands. 4) The Commission may only act on the three lots and the first phase of the residential project, as outlined in the warning for the public hearing. I have recommended the applicant immediately -submit the required data for final plat approval of phases II & III. 5) Memos from Bruce O'Neill (concerning land or fee) and the Natural Resources Committee (relocation of pedestrian easement) are enclosed or are forthcoming. The recreation fee works out to be $3447. South Burlington Recreation Department 1175 WILLISTON RD. „M.,.. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 802-863-2891 M E M 0 TO: Stephen Page, Planning Assistant FROM: Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director RE: I.C.V. Recreation Land DATE: May 5, 1977 In regards to the unknown quantity of land that the developer indicated would be available to the City, I would like to make the following observations and recommendations. The main problem that the increased development in South Burlington will incur on this department will be the pressure that it will put on our recreation facilities for organized recreation. Any land that we acquire must be suitable for the development of facilities. There is also a need for green belts and pedestrian trails, bike paths, etc., however I feel that these should be handled separately from regular park lands. You currently have a recommendation from the Natural Resources Committee regarding a Pedestrian Right of Way through the I.C.V. property. Park land must be dry, suitable for development of a variety of recreation facilities and be accessible. In my opinion the land being offered does not meet these criteria and therefore I cannot recommend acquiring this land. A fee received from this developer could be used to either develop the Garvey Property which is in the general vicinity of the development or explore the possibilities of acquiring other suitable land closer to the development, combining fees received from the developer with other developers fees or other city monies. Bruce M. O'Neill �' South Burlington Recreation Department 1175 WILLISTON RD. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 802-863-2891 M E M O TO: Stephen Page, Planning Assistant FROM: Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director RE: I.C.V. Recreation Land DATE: May 5, 1977 In regards to the unknown quantity of land that the developer indicated would be available to the City, I would like to make the following observations and recommendations. The main problem that the increased development in South Burlington will incur on this department will be the pressure that it will put on our recreation facilities for organized recreation. Any land that we acquire must be suitable for the development of facilities. There is also a need for green belts and pedestrian trails, bike paths, etc., however I feel that these should be handled separately from regular park lands. You currently have a recommendation from the Natural Resources Committee regarding a Pedestrian Right of Way through the I.C.V. property. Park land must be dry, suitable for development of a variety of recreation facilities and be accessible. In my opinion the land being offered does not meet these criteria and therefore I cannot recommend acquiring this land. A fee received from this developer could be used to either develop the Garvey Property which is in the general vicinity of the development or explore the possibilities of acquiring other suitable land closer to the development, combining fees received from the developer with other developers fees or other city monies. jmb Bruce M. O'Neill �Re Aril 22� 77 'Ix. -illiu , L. :•essel Chairman,,,�(Aith Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston �:oad :youth LurlinL tong Vermont 054G1 Dear As. r:essel� �,n Thursday :,pril 21 ., 1977 I`X. 6v'illiam Szymanski and I reviewed the plans on ICV apartment complex off Iennedy Drive and the following; was found which needs correction so the fire departrent will beable to give proper fire protection. 1. i,in roads i.ust be 30 feet wide. 2. 1he end of the street for phase 1 and phase 2 rust be tied in to each other so there are no dead end streets# 3. Water line to be feed from tpblocations. 4. Hydrants to be located as marked on plans by is. :>zyrmanski and myself. If you have any questions on the above please feel free to call me at 563-6455• Sincerely i"James �y. Goddette Sr. Chief. cc; I•s. b,illiam :Izymanski M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: I.C.V. Development Date: April 22, 1977 1. Road should be 30 feet in width with curbs and drainage. 2. First phase of the project should include the water main construction shown as future construction. 3. An additional hydrant is required at the southerly extremity of this phase. 4. Parking areas should be curbed. Additional drainage inlets in the parking area will be required. 5. A turnaround should be provided. 6. Water main and service valves, meters, materials, etc. shall be as approved by the City Water Department. Respectfully submitted, William J. Szymanski, City Manager PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PUkNNI1,.!G COMIMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 a,Jilliston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on April --A- 1077 at 7:30 T.).m, to consider the following: Final Plat application of Investors Corporation of Vermont, Fir. Peter Judge, Agent, for approval of a subdivision consisting of 3 lots, approximately .75A)'75� and 36A in size (the smaller lots for commercial purposes) and for the first phase of a 240 unit apartment complex on the larger lot. The proposed subdivision is bounded on tLe--..'5L.Q-U-th- and east by Kennedy Drive, on the west7by lands of Sheffield, Jon Stokes, Shakey's, Inc., Roostertail, Inc., The Williston Corporation, i,Ietrorpolitan Life Insurance, Densmore Company, Inc., and ',^,Iilliston Road, as per plans on file at City Hall, 1175 Williston Road T4r 4T ?'Nw" OTt Vlilliam0T'. tOVv', es'VLeftl, Chairman So. Burlington Planning Commission April I-e-, 10,77 P. 0. Box 132 R.9sex Junction, VT 05452 April 111, 1977 Mr. Peter Judge Investors Cornoration of Vermont 100 Dorset Street South Fkwlington, Vermont 051101 Dear Mr. Judge: This will confirm, our conversation of April 13th, re: Ph,-7ise I of your proposed apartment caT�lex on. Kennedy Drive. To prevent delays in tl,k,, Act 250 review of your project, I would re-cornend the followinf', additions to your sulnis,.iion: a) Tdentify rToaps of pines that you wish to preserve, and locate them as accurately as possible on the site plan. This will allow you to site the buildin,,T more precisely. b) Include a cul-de--sac or siridlar loop to allow 1,:ir!-,e vehicles suelh as firetrucks, novinF7 vans, etc. to turn around. c) T,)evelop a lan.iscape plan, including; plantinp-,s along Mennedy Drive-, aro und the tennis courts and pool, and a typical plan for a building. Be sure to use salt tolerant trees along, Kennedy Drive. d) Submit your insulation plans. Sincerely, '% jf Russell S. Reay vnvironrental Advisor RSR:m ls cc: Curt Carter City of South Nwlinrton,, April 4, 1977 Mr. Peter Judge Investors Corporation of Vermont 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear fir. Judge, At their regular meeting on March 23, 1977, the South Burlington School Board voted that the proposed 240 unit apartment project outlined in your letter dated February 11, 1977 would not place an unreasonable burden on this municipality to provide educational services. Because of our concern for the safety of our students, it is requested that sidewalks be provided in conjunction with the roads to he constructed. This will allow students to walk safely to and from bus stops. I a;r enclosing; a copy of our transportation policy for your information. Please note item # under the administrative guidelines - "Buses will not be routed over private roads. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Frederick 11. Tuttle Superintendent of Schools FUT: cl / nc. cc: Mr. Stephen Page, Plannins� Assistant ?•1r. John Lucas, Business 'ianag°er No Text 0 n :3(1-�__27 Notice of Incomplete Application The application of =C-V owner, developer, or applicant f or F-jkt.&.L- site plan review, subdivision review, right of way approval, etc. under section(s') Z©�- of the municipal 30e,tA il-c=-lOt j regulations was received by this office (zoning, subdivision 3 t8 ate This application is incomplete because: 04. 3/z--z-b_ - date Zoning A ministrati Officer - Applicant's Option - Please read the options described below and sign as appropriate A. [j You may resubmit this application, with the deficiencies corrected, within 10 days, in which case it will be re- viewed at the next regularly scheduled planning commis- sion meeting (the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month). date Applicant's signature B.0 As an alternative to resubmitting your application with the deficiencies corrected, you may have your application processed as presented, in which case, the Planning Commission will be given a copy of this notice. ate Applicant's signature 2) continent upon the fol 1) The following draftin warning for final plat Apnrov lion of existing wooded par ing s a s, aislewidthe an aisle widths to be at least 24 relocate parkin shelter from a_�entrance indicate place fo portation Authoritysto rear lot _line for lot # how tivulitions: correciLions shall be madeprior t • /A'c ea a of the three lots ea area encroac ent at northeast co road av s own consis v o sc WnChittenden e are 2 rows of parkin 0 how deceleration lane County Trans- nding Bruce Hau hten's a roval show intersection of ICV. Dumont.-CUT774` 2) The -siting of all buildings,_ parking areas structures shall be in accord with the recommendations of e County Forester Soil Conservation Service so as to minimize the windthrow hazard and to insure that soils with developmental limitations are avoided i.e. unstable, high water table, or sprin.-s . 3)_ The design, layout;-and-specif ications-of-utilities,-such as _ water -- sewer; and -storm -drainage,= as well as roadways, shall -be -revi-ew--d-=_-- -- and -approved-by the City --En ineer-_-takin into account the' -comments of the -fire chief memo Sated 2 =17 ,---prior--to warning for -final --plat_ - approval. 4) The School Board must certify the ability of' the City's schoo system to accomodate the school aged children anticipated from the entire_ project, or any phases thereof. 5) -The following documents must be submitted prior to warning for _ final plat -approval: a) draft of easement for-ecommon use of westerlv curb cut. b) draft of easement for common use of single curb cut to lots 1 & 2. 0 draft of a dedication for a strip of land along Williston Road. d) draft of pedestrian easement. to connect Kennedv Drive to City Parkland. e) necessary utility easements. s. 6) The final plat sha s ow the particular areas of the plat --�" which relate to the documents described above. 4,,h C-/ 7 The exact location of the westerly access shall be e by the City Engineer. The applicant shall make this curb cut available to the abuttor for access purposes. without restrictions. and for a nominal fee i.e. �1.00). tjQT- Xj / 8) A sidewalk shall be extended, contiruinr from Kennedy Drive cross the entire Williston Road frontage. - v4 9) A developmental timetable, s cifying the start and completion dates for construction of buildings and site improvements shall be submitted prior to warning, for final plat approval. - 10) All phases of the project are subject to site The motion was seconded by*Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Reconsideration of proposed by_City Council with comments). hensive plan amendments (return i�1r. Wessel gave some background on this subject, saying that the pro- posed amendments had been sent to the City Council, but that they had not acted on them and had, instead, merely commented. He explained that the failure to act constituted disapproval and that they (the Planning Commission) would have to begin again. t1r. Page had attended the City Council meeting and so was asked what the issues were. He replied that the major confusion was in regard to the role of 19illiston Road. 1ras it a through street or a '1+o"-street, providing access to abutting properties? At this point -Mr. Eorency and Mr.-Poger agreed that they would -like .a letter covering -the disapproval -and the -reasons for -it-. --They felt = that_-= _ -- the=City=Council-should specify -what they did -not- like -so that the Planning- Commission- could deai=with-it. Mr.- Morency moved that they request- the -City -Council to.reply--in writing, with their considered 'ud ement to the South Burlington Planning Com- mission's letter of November dp regarding the amendments to the transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan The motion was seconded by Mr. Poger and passed unanimously. Committee Reports Before -the -_Committee Reports, Mr. Pat Iafrate spoke to the Planning. Commission about building_a. model of traffic flow in.South Burlington with the object--of_-aidink.__in the decision -making process. It would be done with the aid of a computer. Mr. Iafrate offered his time on a part-time basis and said that he would try to obtain free computer time if possible. He explained that he would start with a simple intersection and work up from there, with the rate of growth depending on his time and the computer time. With the aid of such a model, the Planning Commission could more easily assess the impact of certain actions.on traffic flow. Mr. Iafrate said the cost of a CPU minute is approximately $7.00 and that -a typical run might take 30 minutes. The first couple of times would need polishing, too, he said, so that you could easily get to three times that figure before you had a "clean" program. He pointed out, however, that once the model was built, it would be good forever if it were kept up to date. I1r. Woolery asked what the program was, and Mr. Iafrate replied that it was GPSS, or General Purpose Simulation System, and is used to evaluate any kind of flow, whether objects or people. Air. Zorency asked how one could verify the model, and Mr. Iafrate replied that it would be checked against the actual conditions. Mr. 1.7orency then asked how valid it was and how well it could be defended. M:r. Iafrate said that he really did not know, but he couldn't validate it 100�. City of South Burlington 1175 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 863-2891 February 25, 1977 M.r. Bruce Houghton Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 58 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Curb cut layout and design, I.C.V. Subdivision at corner of Jilliston Road and Kennedy Drive Dear Bruce: V4'e would like to solicit your comments and advice on the followin aspects of the I.C.V. subdivision proposal (plan enclosed , which consists of 240 apartment units off Kennedy Drive and two commercial lots off 17illiston Road: 1) we have required the two commercial lots to be serviced by a common curb cut on the premise that access must be allowed to ti'Jilliston Road and that one access point would be preferable to two. 2) the applicant has asked for an exit only curb cut from the corner commercial lot onto Kennedy Drive, which, at this time, we can see so major problems with. 3) we have recommended a decelleration lane at the primary entrance to the project to serve CCTA buses, school buses, and entering traffic so as to minimize obstructions to through traffic. 4) vie are considering allowing a second curb cut to the apartments, on a conditional basis, due to the ex- tensive frontage of this parcel, the possibility for this curb cut being shared by an abutting property (yet to be developed), limitations of topography on site, and improved access to such a large number of residential units. 5) based on CCRPC technical memoranda and information submitted by the applicant, I have estimated traffic �eneration to be approximately .75 trips per unit in and out) at peak hours, and further, concluded that this traffic can be adequately absorbed on Kennedy Drive and the two nearest intersections (effects of Digital not included). Any comments on the above, within the next 3 to 4 weeks, would be most appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen Page, Planning Assistant SP/dlg Investors Corporation of Vermont ICV Construction, Inc. 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Mr. Leo H . Dmmt 14 Duval Street South Burlington, Dear Nfr . Ducmnt : Vermont 05401 February 17, 1977 (802) 863-2311 Enclosed please find a copy of a drawing which shows the southeasterly corner of our property on Kennedy Drive. As I mentioned on the telephone we are planning to develop an apartment complex on this site which adjoins your land. The South Burlington Planning Commission is interested in limiting the number of curb cuts on Kennedy Drive. Accordingly they have requested us to look into the feasibility of combining an entrance to our property with an entrance to your site. I believe that it is their intention to restrict the access to your land and to the western most portion of our land to this one curb cut. We are agreeable to providing an easement for access to your property at the entrance way shown on the drawing. We would also be agreeable to entering from your property, by means of an easement, should this be your wish. It might also be possible to place the entrance at the common boundary if that would be your desire. We would appreciate it if you would discuss the matter with your brother and give it serious consideration. We will be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss it in greater detail. In any event would you be kind enough to give us your answer within the next two or three weeks in order that we may continue our subdivision application which is presently before the Planning Commission. Your consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely\yours, Peter Judr PJ:es Enclosure 9 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1977 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 1977 in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. Members Present William Wessel, Chairman; Sidney Poger, David Morency, Kirk Woolery, Janes Ewing Members Absent Frank Lidral, Ernest Levesque Others Present Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Dave Krieger, Free Press; Peter Judge, Paul Sprague, ICV; Pat Iafrate, Bill Schuele- The 'meeting was called_ to =order by chairman -Wessel -at ._7:40 -p.m. Continuation of Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat Application of Investors Corporation of Vermont A revised plat of the proposed development was shown. Revisions included a walkway along the stream, the sidewalks for the later phases, the location of the pool and community buildings, and an adjacent lot line. Mr. Ewing asked if the agreement concerning the curb cut had been made with Mr. Dumont. Mr. Judge replied that it was still a verbal agree- ment, -not a formal one, because he had not yet had time to meet with Xr. Dumont to work out a location and other details. He said that he expected Mr. Dumont to be in agreement, however. Prompted by a question from Mr. Page, several points were discussed. Mr. Judge said that they had been thinking about creating a pond by digging near, not damming up, the stream which runs through the property. He said that there were three reasons that they had been considering this action. It would 1) create aesthetic interest, 2) be incorporated into the recreation area, and 3) possibly serve as a holding pond for storm drainage. It was agreed that this action would have to be discussed with several other boards, such as Water Resources. The question of where the public access to the pedestrian trails would be was also brought up and it was suggested that the office building parking lot might be a good place since the public would be wanting access on the weekends. Following a short discussion of site plan chances, ,-.r. Poger moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission Approve the Preliminary Plat forznvestors Corporation of Vermont, as depicted on a Plan entitled, "Site Plan -Kennedy Drive Apartments for ICV n This approval is based on Positive findings reached by the Commission under the 14 general stendards for PUD evaluation and the specific standards for RPUD evaluation, These findin=:s and approvals are 2) contingent upon the following conditions and stipulations: 1) The following drafting corrections shall be made, prior to warning for final plat approval: acreage of the three lots, earer demarcation of existing wooded areas,encroachment at northeast corner, parking stalls, aislewidths and roadways shown consistently to scale, aisle widths to be at least 24 feet where there are 2 rows of parking, relocate parking shelter from over water line, show deceleration lane at entrance, indicate place for school and Chittenden County Trans- portation Authority bus stop pending Bruce Haughten's approval, show rear lot line for lot 2 show_ intersection of ICV. Dumont. Citv property lines. 2) The siting of all buildings, parking areas, and other structures shall be in accord with the recommendations of the County Forester and Soil Conservation Service so as to minimize the windthrow hazard and to insure that soils with developmental limitations are avoided i.e unstable. high water table. or sprinzs . 3) The design, layout, --and specifications of utilities, such as water, sewer, and -storm draina-ge,-as well as roadways, shall be -reviewed -- and approved b the-- City- Enineer -- takin' into account the -comments of =_ the=fire chief- memo dated--22 77-, prior to Warning for final plat -- approval. 4) The School Board must certify the ability of'the City's school system to accomodate the school aged children anticipated from the entire project, or any phases thereof. 5) The following documents must be submitted prior to warning for final plat approval: a) draft of easement for-ccommon use of westerly curb cut. b) draft of easement for common use of single curb cut to lots 1 & 2. c) draft of a dedication for a strip of land along Williston Road. d) draft of pedestrian easement, to connect Kennedy Drive to City Park land. e)' necessary utility easements. 6) The final plat shall show the particular areas of the plat which relate to the documents described above. 7) The exact location of the westerlv access shall be determined by the City Engineer. The applicant shall make this curb cut available to the abuttor for access purposes, without restrictions and for a nominal fee i.e. :31.00 . f 8) A side;:alk shall be extended, continuing from Kennedy Drive, across the entire Williston Road frontage. 3) 9) A developmental timetable, specifying the start and completion dates for construction of buildings and site improvements shall be submitted prior to warning, for final plat approval 10) All phases of the project are subject to site plan review. The motion was seconded by'Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Reconsideration of proposed comprehensive plan amendments returned by City Council with comments). Mr. Wessel gave some background on this subject, saying that the pro- posed amendments had been sent to the City Council, but that they had not acted on them and had, instead, merely commented. He explained that the failure to act constituted disapproval and that they (the Planning Commission) would have to begin again. 1,11r. Page had attended the City Council meeting and so was asked what the issues were. He replied that the major confusion was in regard to the role of Williston Road. Was it a through street or a '14-o"-street, providing access to abutting properties? At this point Mir. Morency and Mr.-Poger agreed that they would -like a_ letter covering -the --disapproval and the reasons for it.-- They -felt -that===- the-City=Council should specify -what -they did not like so that the Planning Com-mission could- deal- with it. 1Ir.--Ewing =agreed. -_ Mr. Morency moved that they request the City -Council to reply -in writing', with their considered 'ud ement to the South Burlington Planning Com- mission's letter of November 0. 1976 regarding the amendments to the transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Poger and passed unanimously. Committee Reports Before the Committee Reports, hr. Pat Iafrate spoke to the Planning ---- Commission about building.a model of traffic.fiow in,South Burlington with the object --of. aiding. in the decision -making process. It would be done with the aid of a computer. Mr. Iafrate offered his time on a part-time basis and said that he would try to obtain free computer time if possible. He explained that he would start with a simple intersection and work up from there, with the rate of growth depending on his time and the computer time. With the aid of such a model, the Planning Commission could more easily assess the impact of certain actions.on traffic flow. Mr. Iafrate said the cost of a CPU minute is approximately 37.00 and that,a typical run might take 30 minutes. The first couple of times would need polishing, too, he said, so that you could easily get to three times that figure before you had a "clean" program. He pointed out, however, that once the model was built, it would be good forever if it were kept up to date. I;r. Woolery asked what the program was, and Mr. Iafrate replied that it was GPSS, or General Purpose Simulation System, and is used to evaluate any kind of flog, whether objects or people. Ir. iiorency asked how one could verify the model, and I•ir. Iafrate replied that it would be checked against the actual conditions. Mir. Morency then asked how valid it was and how well it could be defended. Mr. Iafrate said that he really did not know, but he couldn't validate it 100,;�. e South Burlington Recreation Department 1175 WILLISTON RD. ,,,�'� SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 TEL. 802-863-2891 TO: Steven Page, Planning Assistant FROM: Bruce M. O'Neill, Recreation Director RE: ICV Apartments DATE: February 7, 1977 I would like to give you several reactions regarding the ICV Development Recreation Facilities based on reviewing the site plan. The points that I will bring out are based upon my best professional judgements. The tennis courts and the community building appear to be fairly far removed from the majority of apartment buildings. Depending upon weather and the particular health or other problems that individual residents might have, it could make getting to and from the facilities very difficult. If possible, I would suggest that the facilities be located in an area more central to the apartment units. There is also a possible problem that the tennis courts being fairly close to Kennedy Drive, and by the site plan being unscreened, they might leave people from outside the area with the impression that they are public courts. Moving them back and closer to the apartment units might save the owners some grief. The tennis courts appear to have an east -west orientation; thus creating real problems for players on sunny days. A more north -south orientation would be more desirable. The written report makes mention of a swimming pool which does not show on the site plan, however such a facility should be located in the same area as the tennis courts and community building. I also feel that if any number of young children are going to be living in these apartments, that playground equipment should be provided in some proximity to the dwelling units. MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, I.C.V. APARTM NT COMPLEX, KENNEDY DRIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1977 1. Commission should consider phase I only at this hearing - phase II and III should be considered prior to actual construction. 2. Landscaping plan should be submitted in detail prior to final plat approval. Developer should work with Tree Committee and County Forester regarding saving existing vegetation. 3. Sidewalk should be continued from Kennedy Drive along proposed Williston Road lots. 4. No structures are allowed over utilities - plan shows carport over water line. 5. Sewer system - clean outs required every 150 feet. 6. Waiver on side yard required by Planning Commission - under Section 6.30. Identified as building 2 and 3 written on plan. Minimum between buildings would be 30 feet. Plan shows 25 feet. 7. Parking as detailed on plan is inadequate - unable to properly calculate. The minimum required spaces for phase I would be 1.5 spaces per unit or 96 total. Have some concern regarding one bedroom unit, minimum square footage required per unit is 500. M E iJM 0 R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN PAGE, PLANNING ASSISTANT RE: PRELI1,4INARY PLAT, ICV SUBDIVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1977 The following comments are arranged in order of the 14 general crit���ia outlined in the Zoning for a RPUD: 1) Filling and cutting associated with the project should be described, particularly at the back of the two commercial lots. The nature of the fill, compaction, and measures to prevent erosion should be discussed. 2) Refer to letter from Fire Chief regardin number and location of fire hydrants and water pressure ?also road widths) . 3) The storm drainage system is to be reviewed by the City Engineer. The size, location, and effects of the pro- posed pond should be discussed. 4) I recommend the approval of two curb cuts based on 1200' separation between them, sight distance, topography of the site, and Dumont's tentative agreement to share the west- erly curb cut. The applicantt' traffic generation estimates are confirmed by recent RPC counts taken at Georgetown. The capacity of Kennedy Drive itself, and the two nearest intersections (Kennedy Dr. x Williston Rd., Kennedy Dr. x Route 116) appears to be more than adequate based on Bruce Houghton's letter, and more recent traffic data from the RPC. A deceleration lane at the entrance to the project would facilitate entering traffic, plus school and CCTA buses. Parking aisle widths should all be at least 22'-241. 5) We are waiting for input from the School Board. 6) Both the Police and the Fire Chief indicate that they need more men and equipment; except as otherwise noted (92 above), they had no comments specifically directed at this project. A memo from the recreation director is enclosed. I would like to see the pool (mentioned in the application) located on the plat; the applicant has agreed to provide a playground and some internal trails (both of which should be spotted on the plat). ✓) Existing wooded areas should be outlined on the plat. The County Forester and or Soil Conservation Service should be consulted with the regard to windthrow hazard, unstable soils, and high water table, below the 3201 contour (this was discussed during the previous project review for this property). I would question development proposed beyond the 3201 contour unless otherwise indicated by soils or forestry experts. Applicant has tentatively agreed to provide a public pedestrian trail easement along Potash Brook (as indicated by the Plan) provided the details of access, liability, policing, etc. can be worked out. The location of this easement should be shown on the Plat. Landscaping, as required by site plan review, should insure an aesthetically pleasing development. 8) Conforms to local Plan. 9) 10) This is a highly clustered project, with nominal lot coverage. The developer should outline his plans for maintenance of common open space; further, he should enter into an agree- ment with -the City, which "freezes" the allowable number of units on this property, for a length of time to be determined by the City Attorney. 11) The highly clustered layout affords a high degree of economy in utility installation, construction, and maintenance. The applicant should show which utilities he proposes to be muni-cipally owned and maintained, and provide the appropriate easements. The overall utility layout is to be reviewed by the City Engineer. 12 & 13. The developer should provide a developmental timetable, satisfactory to the Commission. It is anticipated that this timetable will be used as a guideline in making firm commitments on sewage capacity. 3- 14 ) Miscellaneous The following data should be added to lot lines, lot numbers and acreage, access lots plus the easement needed to the corner numbers, number of units in each building, shelters from over utility lines. the plat: exact to the commercial lot, building move parking SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT 555 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Richard G. Carter, Chief Telephone 658-1050 February 2, 197 William B. I'essel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington, Vermont Dear Sir: The South Burlington Police Department is presently operating at its maximum for the size of our City. Any new development will seriously over -tax our present capabilities to efficiently enforce the law and protect life and property. It is my opinion that any new development, both residential and indus- trial, will make it imperative that the department be expanded, not only in personnel, but in equipment, dramatically and immediately. Very truly yours, k"�A C Richard G. Carter RGC/11 Suggested Approval Motion for Preliminary Plat of ICV I move that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of Investors Corporation of Vermont, as depicted on a plan entitled, "Site Plan -Kennedy Drive Apartments For ICV Corporation, South Burlington Vermont", dated 1/20/77, revised 2/8%77. This approval is based on positive findings reached by the Commission under the 14 general standards for PUD evaluation and the specific standards for RPUD evaluation. These findings and approvals are contingent upon the following conditions and stipulations: 1) The following drafting, corrections shall be made, prior to warning for final plat approval: acreage of the three lots, clearer demarcation of existing wooded areas, encroachment at northeast corner, parking stalls, aislewidths and roadways shown consistently to scale, aisle widths to be at least 24 feet where there are 2 rows of parking, relocate parking shelter from over 1r-iater line, show deceleration lane at entrance, ;hot rear lot line for lot 112, show intersection of Tr-'V, Dumont, City property lines. � � �.�' 2) The siting of all buildings, narking areas, and other structures shall be in accord with the recommendations of the County Forester and Soil Conservation Service so as to minimize the windthrow hazard, and to insure that soils with developmental limitations are avoided (i.e, instable, high water table, or springs). 3) The design, layout, and specifications of utilities, such as water, sewer, and storm drainage, as well as roadways, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, taking into account the comments of the fire chief (memo dated 2/2/77), prior to warning for final plat approval. 4) The .School Board must certify the ability of the City's school system to accomodatc the school aged children anticipated from the entire project, or any phases thereof. 5) The following documents must be submitted prior to warning for final plat approval: a) draft of easement, for common use of westerly curb cut. b) draft of easement for common use of single curb cut to lots 1 & 2. -2- c) draft of rY, 4nmr�n for strip of land along Williston Road. d) draft of pedestrian easement, to connect Kennedy Drive to City Park land. e) necessary utility easements. 6) The final plat shall show the particular areas of the plat which relate to the documents described above. 7) The exact location of the westerly �"i-�t)t shall be determined by the City Engineer. The applicant shall make this curb cut available to the abuttor for access purposes, without restrictions, and for a nominal fee (i.e., $1--). 8) A sidewalk shall be extended, continuing from Kennedy Drive, across the entire 'j,,illiston Road frontage. 9) A developmental timetable, specifying the start and completion dates for construction of buildings and site improvements shall be submitted prior to warning, for final plat approval. 10) All phases of the project are subject to site plan review. PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a Public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on February 8, 1977 to consider the following: Preliminary Plat application of Investors Corp. of Vermont, r1r. Peter Judge, Agent, for approval of a subdivision consisting of 3 lots, a-pproximately i75 A, .75 A, and 36 A in size (the smaller lots or commercial purposes) and for the development of a 240 unit apartment complex on the larger lot. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the south and east by Kennedy Drive, on the west by lands of Robert and Leo Dumont, Duane Merrill, and the City of South Eurlington, on the north by lands of Marvin G. Sheffield, Jon Stokes, Shakey's, Inc., Roostertail, Inc., tre 'Williston Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Densmore Company, Inc., and ;Williston Road, as per plans on file at City Hall, 1175 Williston Road. William Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 1/22/77 Notice of Incomplete Application The application of I.C.V. Construction Company owner, developer, or applicant f or —Preliminary Plat site plan review, subdivision review, right of way approval, etc. under section(s) 203.1 regulations was erg, ub ivision 1/19/77 . ate This application Inadequate drawings- esu mi y a.m of the municipal received by this office is incomplete because: over -- - ----- or 278711 wiII 15e warned. L/ I-t and Public Hearinc 1/19/77 Stephen Page date-zomrrg Administrative 0 icer Applicant's Option - Please read the options described below and sign as appropriate A. [j You may resubmit this application, with the deficiencies corrected, within 10 days, in which case it will be re- viewed at the next regularly scheduled planning commis- sion meeting (the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month). date Applicant's signature B.0 As an alternative to resubmitting your application with the deficiencies corrected, you may have your application processed as presented, in which case, the Planning Commission will be given a copy of this notice. ate Applicant's signature �ot . mbers and acreage of the res. and comm. lots show cess to commercial lots 'nt sec in of Dumont, ICV, City of So. Burl. property lines on ur,,�incomplete - proposed grade changes? 1' �shwooded areas preliminary storm drainage design sidewalks? paths? ped easements a,P ►ram__ a +.a--p-a-rk T' g -s pa c e s location of outdoor lighting MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COM11,4ISSION FROM: RICHARD WARD,ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT DATE: DECEMBER 27, 1976 Investors Corporation of Vermont, Kennedy Drive 1) Parcel under consideration is located within three different zoning districts. a) Business Retail, fronting along Williston =.oad. b) Conservation -Open Space (Potash Brook). c) Approximately 35 acres, in the Residential 7 district. 2) Density allowed based on 35 acres would be 245 units. 3) Proposed development conforms with Section 6.30 (Residential Planned Unit Development) Review under Section 12.002 W. 4) Set back of two structures are less than 75 feet, it is my understanding that all structures will conform to set back requirements, and that an amended sketch plan will be filed. 5) Traffic circulation should be discussed regarding two separate clusters, two curb cuts not connected within entire development. 6) Growth rate of development to be a consideration, other approved R.P.U.D's allowed to construct 30 units per year. 7) A minor subdivision application shculd be presented to the Manning Commis ion, two possibly three lots are being set off by I.C.V. M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Site Plan Reviews Date: December 23, 1976 Digital The architects are working with the city on the services. The entrance and circulation appears satisfactory. R.D.R. Enterprises The water main is along the west.side of Shunpike Road._ The installation of the service -should be coordinated with the sewer construction. Kennedy Drive Apartments I would prefer a single entrance onto Kennedy Drive opposite the Industrial Road. The road opening requires state and federal approval. Provisions could be made to tie the entrance to the land to the west for an alternate entrance. Forest Park Apartments 1. A sidewalk should be constructed along Hinesburg Road.-_ 2. There should be a grassed strip separating walkways from parking areas to facilitate snow removal and for pedestrian safety. 3. A sidewalk to the medical complex should be investigated. 4. Consideration should be given to relocating the entrance southerly so that development of the large parcel across the road would have its entrance opposite to this development entrance. Respectfully submitted, d / William J. Sz manski, City Manager DR, ICV Subdivision Considerable time has been spent with the applicant outlining the issues likely to arise during the review of this f project. Also, the file on the BSSB proposal (a similar apartment project for the same site approved several years ago) h.--as been a source of considerable .information. �r i The major considerations, which the applicant plans to address, relate to 11 gro�,,,th rate, 2) impact on schools, 3) traffic and 4) utilities (water supply, sewage disposal, and storm drainage). Other considerations include 1) pedestrian trails and open space, 2) unstable soils in the vicinity of Potash Brook, 3) coordination of utilities and circulation oining pr>rrties, 4Lnnedy areas with a high water systems with a�jtable, 5 visual/aural bt.�F" m rs from, Drive, 6) commercial development and associated .ot lines. IIf Notice of Incomplete Application The application of I.C.V. Construction Company owner, developer, or applicant for Preliminary Plat site plan review, vision review, right of way approval, etc. under section(s) 203.1 of the municipal regulations was received by this office ubdivision 1/19/77 ate This application is incomplete because: Inadequate drawings- over esu H�it, by a.m. Fri. and Public Hearin or will e warned. 1/19/77 date Applicant's Option - Plea and sign as appropriate Stenh nistrative OfT ead the options descri cer A. [j You may resubmit this application, with the deficiencies corrected, within 10 days, in which case it will be re- viewed at the next regularly scheduled planning commis- sion meeting (the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month). date Applicant's signature B.0 As an alternative to resubmitting your application with the deficiencies corrected, you may have your application processed as presented, in which case, the Planning Commission will be given a copy of this notice. ate Applicant's signature - consolidate the two maps into one - lot numbers and acreage of the res. and comm. lots show access to commercial lots 5 intersection of Dumont, ICV, City of So. Burl. property lines - contours incomplete - proposed grade changes? - show wooded areas - preliminary storm drainage design - sidewalks? paths? ped easements - vicinity map - delitomeate parking spaces - location of outdoor lighting CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPLICATION READINESS This is to certify that has submitted a complete appliat'on to the So th Burling on Planning Commission on i��� _ , for the purpose of The Zoning Administrator finds that the applicant has filed all applicable submissions and is in conformance with the city's zoning -regulations. Zoning Administrator e The applicant was granted a Zoning Board of Adjustment variance on Q See attached memo The Planning Assistant finds the application is in con- formance with the master plane-#at-—answ�xs -a-�s- r.a ised--lay--t�e --r-eui.e.�cess . s/ Planning Assistant () Date Co See attached memo The Fire Chief certifies that this application does PAWt adversely affect the fire department's ability to protect life and property in the city `®` at this site `!`"create a need for additional personnel, programs or equipment. ire ee attached memo The School Directors certify that the proposed project (to be specifically named) will/will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of this municipality to provide educational services. If a negative response is given, information will be provided to explain the Board's decision. Chairman Date QSee attached memo PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPLICATION READINESS Page 2 9G The Police Chief certifies that this application does omt- adversely affect the Police Department's ability to protect life and property in the city or at this site or create'a need additional personnel, programs, or equipment. i Police Chief Date See attached memo The undersigned City Engineer certifies that this applica- tion is in conformance with the city's transportation plan, represents sound engineering practice and will not create an unsafe traffic 0 conc tion. lam/ /. s/ City Eng pace attached memo /Z- z 7 --,74r.. e The Planning Assistant certifies that this application raises no legal questions that he can foresee, or if it does that they have been answered by the City Attorney in the attached opinion.-_ 7 7( annin4 Assista CD See attached memo The City Engineer certifies that the application is in conformance with city engineering standards and represents sound engineering practice as shown. s/ City Engineer Date CD See attached memo This completed certificate shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Chairman riot to the applicant's being placed on the agenda of a regu ar y scheduled meeting. This certificate is required for site plan review, sketch plans, preliminary plats, final plats and right-of-way approvals. The Chairman shall determine with the advice of the Planning Assistant if any of the above signatures are not necessary, however, it is assumed that all apply. DONALD E. O'BRIEN ATTORNEY AT LAW 231 SOUTH UNION STREET IWRLINGTON. VERMONT Os401 i AREA Coz,x 802 TELEPHONs 863.6879 January 19, 1973 John T. Ewing, Esq. Ewing & Spokes Attorneys at Law 86 St. Paul Street Burlington, VT 05401 Re: BSSB Realty Trust - City of South Burlington Dear John: Enclosed please find draft copies of proposed agreements with respect to the above matter. I am also submitting these draft copies to my clients at this same time for their approval. Dick Ward has the plan referred to in the documents. It seems to me that we can tie the whole thing into the final recorded plans reflecting what was approved by the Planning Commission. ' I did think it necessary to provide some form of exception with respect to the unimproved land because of the pro- posed commercial development to be constructed by my clients at the corner of Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. The unimproved area actually would be the entire westerly side of the property continuing in a strip down to Kennedy Drive. It is their tentative plan that they would provide some form of access to the residents of the project to get to the commercial area. This would cross the unimproved strip as well as the right-of-way along the northerly side or Potash Brook. If you have any questions about this, please let me know as earl.v as nossihli- qr tra.t T m es��N with �iy iint You will recall that we have now made application for an environmental permit and anticipate a hearing in mid -February. Cordially, Donald E. O'Brien sg/Enc. AGREDIENT AND COVENANT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that BSSB REALTY TRUST, a Massachusetts real estate investment trust, with a principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts, in consideration of the City of South Burlington, a Vermont Municipal corporation, granting to BSSB Realty Trust a permit to construct an apartment housing project on the westerly side of Kennedy Drive in said City does hereby covenant and agree with the City of South Burling- ton as follows: The westerly ?ortion of the land of BSSB Realty Trust as marked, "area to remain un-ieveloped" as set forth on the plan pre- pared by Childs, Bertman, Tseckares Associates, Inc., architects, and recorded with the documents and plans approved by the Planning Commission of the City of South Burlington, shall remain in its natural state without any imrrovements or construction. Prnvi-lPri, howe•:er, that bSSL Realty Trust reserves the right to make application to construct suitable walkways to permit residc.nts of t -ie apartment housing projert to travel from the pro- ject in a Line rough_J.v parallel with Kennedy Drive to the commercial property owned by BSSB Realty Trust located at the intersection of Kenne,ly Drive and Williston Road. This covenant and agreement to continue and remain in effect { City- -"- South -Burl"gton---or-ur��3-thy-prap�rt7 is no longer being used as a housing development, whichever occurs first. Dated at South Burlington, this day of January, 1973. In }ne presence of SATE OF `11 CHTTTENDEN CnUNITY . SS SSSB REALTY TRUST By, At south Rurl ingran in s:>>.,i °..rty this day of January, DONALD E O'BRIEN ATTORNEY AT ]. W 31 SOUTH UNION STREET •UY7.IXOTON. PI. 05401 �I i' 1973, personally appeared before me , 4 Trustee of BSSB Realty Trust, who acknowledged the foregoing Agree-* ment and Covenant, by him sealed and subscribed, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of BSSB Realty Trust. Gefore me, Notary PublIc This Agreement an.,! Covenant is hereby accepted by the City of South Burlington, this day of January, 1973. City of South Burlington Council pONALD F O'BRIEN ATTORNEY AT ]LAW III SOUTH UNION 9TIZEEi 0111RUXOTON. VT. 05401 GRANT OF EASEMENT RIGHT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that BSSB REALTY TRUST, a Massachusetts real estate trust, with a principal place of busi- ness in Poston, Massachusetts, in consideration of the City of South Burlington, a Vermont municipal corporation, granting to BSSB Realty Trust a Permit to construct an apartment housing project on the westerly side of Kennedy Drive in said City, does hereby grant and convey to the City of South Burlington a 20-foot wile right -of. -way to be used in common with the Grantor, its successors and assigns, for the purpose of pedestrian traffic only and excludinq vehicular traffic of any and all types. The Grantee shall have the right to makes reasonable improvements to the right of way incli.iding 11mite.9 but not complete —tree removal in order to mare the same reasonably usable, but shall not have the right to construct a iy fot,-, <:)c paving or har3 Surface on the riyr.c-cf-way. By the acceptance of this grant of easement right, the rrAr.tee covenants and agrees that it will take reasonable steps to assure that persons using the right-of-wav under this easement comply with the conditions and restrictions expressed herein and do not tresriass outside the right-of-way limits. Said right -of --way being more narticularly described as follows: Being that 20-foot stria of land treasured from the northerly 1 .ne _)f that_ )ortion c,; rotas;: Erook througTi -the grantoi!i ororerty from the westerly line of Kenn,.dy .)rive southwesterly to other lard of the Grartee. Said right-of-way 1_eiag :;o-. =ort , a plant prepare:l 1.q Childs, Bertman, Tseckire� Associ-atns, Inc., architects and recor1ed :;itri the t j.:ar,Q-nts aid p1ana approlre,_. by the Planning ^ommission of the City of South Burlington') wig' referLnce tc the grantor's aparc- ment hn,isinq nroject. This grant of easement right tc continiu- until released by the City of South nlirlington or the grantor's lard being no longer used as an ane-rtmer.t housing 3evelonment, whichever occurs first. -� - Date(! at Sett`. Burlington, Vt� rmrnt- t-hi !,. day of Januar.l- 1c)71. In the presence or WALD E. 013MEN ATTORNEY AT LAW 8OI.TX UNION /TRENT ■ "GTON. PT. 05401 IT 1* y .ZU S" Truster fi -i- f STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COU",TY, SS At South Burlington in said county this day of January, 1973, personally appeared before me , 'trustee of BSSB Realty Trust, who acknowledged the foregoing Grant oz Fasement Rignt, by llim sealed and subscribed, to be his free act. and deed and the free act and deed of BSSB Realty Trust. or:a me, Notary Fublfc _ This Grant of Easement Right accepted by the City of Sout4,, Burlington, this day of January, 1973. City of South Burlingtont Council I JJ OFFICE OF THE (COMMISSIC)MER r� RIO 4PA STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS MONTPELIER 05601 Mr. Benjamin Schore BSSB Realty Trust 141 Milk Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Dear Mr. Schore: RECEDED OCT 18..0 C171, 80 9VRL JV'3f_ ; G rON October 16, 1972 We have made a review of the otudy plan, submitted with your October 2nd letter, for your proporad development from Kennedy Drive in the Town of South Burlington. We feel that a single entrance is sufficient for 200 units. Our primary interest is in maintaining a minimum of interference with the traffic using AXrennedy Drive and we prefer to have the movements to and from the development concentrated in one area. We wish to have the drive located directly across from the Town Highway, and to have the diamond island removed and the drive constructed substantially in accordance with Standard Sheet A-76, using the Profile from Standard Sheet B-71. We are concerned with the effect of your proposed construction on our drainage. Our as -built plans show an underdrain outlet under or very close to the drive. Arrangements must be made to keep this underdrain in operation. Your plan does not show all vua .2.otua6e system. We have a 6 drop inlet closed system discharging from a 24" pipe very close to the_ northerly edge of your drive. We believe this should be carried to Potash Brook, substantially as sketched on the enclosed marked -up plan. Your plans are not clear as to how you plan to care for the discharge of the 24" culvert southerly of the south entrance. Contour information indicates it runs onto a parking lot above two proposed houses, and then there is no information as to what will happen to this water, Mr. Benjamin Schore Page 2 October 16, 1972 Your proposed development roads have no drainage indicated, and an engineering study should be made to provide adequate drainage for your development roads. Sincerely, E. H. Stickney Assistant Chief Engineer �I�ll� G. W. A era Utilities Engineer GWA:dcm Enclosures cc: William J. i IA e . 0"44 -owl I I (D "I �A6�,r4a- No Text �=tea `T --o `t:xyf" t A-ucmH G..N¢;b K,- �rTt,- I 01,4 60t4ve�zst or4 -T�; Ce"txVs S` c_ ,•y-e+�wG- i� . Arep q �i �l-% ��G� . 2.3 P//\ Ste• hk2 . , _ p.11 is �E-hk •�2 . 4� a �ZI S M ,e ,SZ *.r AOT v%G = , !.d 'PIN p4e- ++R. , �.. 1�-r�s = � - � ate.. s � - 5 P'�►^ Av-r-, A-ADw- _ ��"'7 v f b I 1 �1 fit, �V • \�- . �i � �Z.7 �7 4) �' 'S — �i 5 �- ?� Z Z = %.4�.. Uo t,` ('`!• °•i�P ' 4 = " 141 �, , �,r7 Z__ e) 33 - I. MXlTt hdc-f zz �77 �a 2-2- -= e--A * -�i- rl G--7;,P-t ov.- /Ovwr n Q�r44 .., ! I ST t A--r-A , .701.'7 71 1.too .q 3) I. /0J7. >UN. tu, LA)/ W- "AxAl - .u� - - -------- Pi� \ (la..vu.�(�►y� �T �"^"� 9�^ S�-'ea ram. a-u-t� I lo PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold o public hear- L ing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Rood, South Burlington, Vermont on qmebtwrT! 1977 to consider the fol- `.i1 lowing: Plat applicption of In- vestors Corp. of Vermont, Mr. Peter Judge, Agent, for approval of a sub- division consisting of 3 Dprox- d impiety .75 A, .IS A, n in size (the smaller to for ercial purposes) a or the ioWM1MN Iw' of a pp apartment complex on the, per lot. The proposed sub- d sion is bounded on the south and st by Kennedy Drive, on the west by lands of Marvin G. Sheffield, Jon Stokes, Shakev's, Inc., Roostertail,' Inc, the Williston Corporation, Met- ropolitan Life Insurance, Densmore Company, Inc., and Williston Road, as per plans a on file Ca C 4-�1, 1175 Williston Road. William Wessel, Chairman South Burlington -- Planning commission �� 1971 , o CONVERT CLUTTER TO CASH �,• Sri . ,� M ... .�.� ♦r>.n- i •.'1 r.�+. iii'i..KY.t.:...:.W(/\l/Lb^'',R..Y,.ij i.. i1' ;rw..♦ t.. w r a s. •..d ..-�0.••..\i1L"'i.G>Y".rv.rMSRI. Red Tape Form - Circulation Zoning Administrator Planning Assistant City Manager (Engineer) Fire Chief Police Chief School Directors Recreation Director City Attorney Transportation Engineer (RPC) Natural Resources Comm. Tree Planting Comm. Other C • r-+ co m .� E a 3 > > a� U -ri ri N O O $4 +� C ri 4-) M+) w -14 k H d C O v co O M am +' > 0- a C c0 .0 co P. a4 a. wP, cn CC Cz Q P. Q N U O ✓ = no adverse comment x = memo enclosed 3) 9) A developmental timetable) _n _cif�inhe 'start and comvletion dates for co_natr_uction of building and site Improvements shall be submitted rior to xnrnin_for final plat approval_. 10) All phases of the project are subject to site -plan review The motion was seconded by -Mr. Irorency and passed unanimously. Reconsideration _of_proposed comprehensive plan f mm Fmendments�returned CiCouncil with coents ;:r. Yessel gave some background on this subject, saying that the pro- posed a-mendinents had been sent to the City Council, but that they had not acted on them and had, instead, merely commented. Fe ezplained that the failure to act constituted disapproval and that they the Planning Commission) would have to begin again. 1•1r. rage had attended the City Council meeting and so was asked what the issues were. He replied that the major confusion was in regard to the role of Williston Road. Was it a through street or a '!}-o"-street, providing access to abutting properties? At this point --her.- i•jorency and -Mr. -Poger agreed. that- they. -would= like a= letter-covering=the=disapproval- and - the- reasons =for -it. :They felt_that the -City =Council= - should- specify -w1at-they=-did--not-like-so that --the Fleshing_--- Comyission-could deal-with-it.-==1Ir.=yrwing=�sreed _ Mr.- Morency moved that -thev° request_ the-�itv_Councii- to. reply in xritin�; with -tbeir considered-'ud eem-ehtt to the South Burlington Plar_n_ing Com- mission's letter of November o� 1y regarding the amendments to the transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. The notion was seconded by 71r. Poger and passed unanimously. Committee Reports Before- the _Committee --Reports; Mr. Pat- Iafrate spoke to -the Planning — Commission -about. building=.a model of traffic'flow.-in-South-Burlington with the object._ -.of . aiding— in -the decision-mpki g process. -_ It would be done with the aid of a computer.- Mr. Iafrate offered his tune on a part-time basis and said. that he would try to obtain free computer -time if possible. He explained that he would start with a simple intersection and work up from there, with the rate of growth depending on hie time and the computer time. With the aid of such a model, the Planning Commission could more easily assess the impact of certain actions.on traffic flow. Mr. Iafrate said the cost of a CPU minute is approximately 57.00 and that•a typical run might take 30 minutes. The first couple of times would need polishing, too, be said, so that you could easily get to three times that figure before you had a "clean" program. He pointed out, however, that once the model was built, it would be good forever if it were kept up to date. Pr. Woolery asked what the program was, and Xr. Iafrate replied that'it was GPSS, or General Purpose Simulation System, and is used to evaluate any kind of flow, whether objects or people. M,r. norency asked how one could ..verify the model, and Mr. Iafrate replied that it -.,ould be checked against the actual conditions. Kr. 1•;oreney then asked how valid it vas and how ..ell it could be defended. Yr. Iafrate said that he really did not )--now, but he couldn't validate it 100/"D'. r /ago, Cr2T�A �o, --r c \2 - -QC) /. So�-4r.s Z tJ . 1, -5r. m I Ee� SMPU 517 x 5- = Z • �BS� 2 zv ur+cts x Z. 5 x. RA` 51�1 � ►� _ ► o i PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX 130110001 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT DEVELOPER: INVESTORS CORPORATION OF VERMONT PROJECTED SCHOOL IMPACT Phase I Construction Occupancy School Year Affected Estimated Students Distribution Phase II Construction Occupancy School Year Affected Estimated Students Distribution Phase III Construction Occupancy School Year Affected Estimated Students Distribution Su inary 78 - 79 5-Urlits May 1977 - January 1978 January 1978 1978 - 1979 16 K - 8 11 9 - 12 5 80 Units April 1978 - January 1979 January 1979 1979 - 1980 20 K - 8 13 9 - 12 7 96 Units // April 1979 - January 1980 January 1980 1980 - 1981 24 K - 8 16 9 - 12 8 7 K - 8 11 24 9 - 12 5 12 40 20 PROJECTED ECONOMIC DTACT The latest Annual Report for the City of South Burlington indicates the per pupil cost of education for the 1975 - 1976 school year was $1,378.28 and $1,562.30 for the elementary school and secondary school respectively. Municipal taxes provided 72.7% of these costs or $1,002.18 and $1,135.99 respectively; the remainder was obtained from the State of Vermont and other sources. At full occupancy the proposed apartment complex would contribute an estimated 60 students to the school system. In current terms this would cost the City $40,087.20 for elementary pupils (40 x $1,002.18) and $22,719.80 for secondary pupils (20 x $1,135.99) or a total of $62,807.00. The real estate taxes generated by our project, at current rates, are estimated to be $120,000.00. With regard to other municipal costs, the Annual Report offers the following budgets: Councilmen Police Highway Budget 661,665 384,375 408,355 1,454,395 Receipts 274,805 70,855 148,225 493,915 To Be Raised From Taxes 386,860 313,490 260,130 960,480 The 1975 Population was estimated to be 10,246 by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. If we allow 1% growth during 1975 and 1976 we obtain 10,452. The per capita expenditure, raised by taxes, during 1977 for the above categories would be 960,480 -. 10,452 = $91.89. Our apartments, at full occupancy, would contain an estimated 600 persons (240 x 2.5). If we allow a normal vacancy of M. we obtain a net residency of 588. The resulting cost to the City in 1977 terms would be 588 x $91.89 = $54,031. Thus the economic impact on South Burlington, in current terms, in 1980 would be: Project Taxes Less: School Costs Yunicipal Costs Surplus $120,000 62,807 54,031 116,838 $ 3,162 Note The addition of the Digital Plant, the University Mall expansion, additions to the Ramada Inn and Sheraton, the Paul Graves Motel, Friendly Ince Cream and others to the Grand List should make the surplus much larger. r RICHARD A. SPOKES 1OSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI WILLIAM G. LIVINCSTON STEVEN F. STITZEL SPOKES 8 OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 SOUTH BURLINGFON, VERMONf 05401 September 29, 1980 Mr. Peter Judge Investors Corp. of Vermont 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Treetop Legal Documents Dear Mr. Judge: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 Please be informed that on this date I have formally requested of Ronald Schmucker, the attorney representing the Treetop Phase 1 Condominium Owners Association, that the Association consider joining the execution of the various roadway, water and sewer line legal documents. I further informed Mr. Schmucker that City representatives would be more than willing to attend a meeting of the Association in order that this matter could be fully discussed. If we determine that the assistance of ICV concerning this matter would be beneficial, we will be in touch with you. As you will recall, during our September 4th luncheon conference you represented that you retained a controlling interest concern- ing the Phase 2 Condominium Owners Association. You further represented that you would make every effort to obtain a resolution from that Association authorizing execution of the various legal documents. I would appreciate receiving at your earliest conven- ience a copy of that resolution as well as the original legal documents executed by both ICV and an authorized representative of the Association. If you have any questions concerning these matters, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, William G. Livingston WGL:mil cc: Richard Ward Paul Farrar r SPOKES F6 OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 RICHARD A. SPOKES SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 IOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI 1775 WILLISTON ROAD WILLIAM G. LIVINCSTON TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 STEVEN F. STITZEL September 29, 1980 Ronald Schmucker, Esq. Perry & Schmucker P. O. Box 2525 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Treetop Legal Documents Dear Mr. Schmucker: I understand that you represent the Condominium Owners Association established in regard to Phase 1 of the Treetop Development. The City of South Burlington is currently finalizing its efforts to secure the various legal documents appurtenant to the South Burlington Planning Commission's approval of the Treetop Develop- ment. Because the various legal documents relate to property in which the Association has an interest by virtue of the Phase 1 Declaration of Condominium, the City believes that approval by the Association is necessary to finalize those documents. Please find enclosed photocopies of the following: 1. An "Agreement and Waiver" which conditionally waives any right to request the City to accept or maintain the Treetop private road network. 2. An Offer of Irrevocable Dedication and Easement Deed for a thirty foot wide sewer and waterline right-of-way. 3. An Offer of Irrevocable Dedication and Bill of Sale in relation to the water and sewerline facilities. You will note that the above documents appear in the form previous- ly submitted to the City by Investors Corporation of Vermont. If the Association is amenable to joining in the execution of those documents we would revise the same to add the Association as a party to the various transfers. If the Association is willing to join in the execution of the various documents, it would appear that two acts would be necessary: 1. A resolution of the Association members authorizing execution of documents; 0 0 Ronald Schmucker, Esq. September 29, 1980 Page 2 2. Execution of the documents in the manner set forth in Section 9 of the Association's Bylaws. I understand that, because the various documents were not executed before the Condominium was declared, finalizing the various docu- ments has become complicated. However, I believe it to be in the Association's best interests to join in document execution in order that the City can obtain the legal authority to provide water and sewer services and maintain the related facilities. Please feel free to contact me if I can clarify my request. I would be glad to appear before the Association with a respresen- tative of the City if the Association desires. Very truly yours, WGL:mil William G. Livingston Enclosures cc: Richard Ward Paul Farrar y Proposed Apartment Complex Kermedy Drive South Burlington, Vermont Developer Investors Corporation of VeYmcn.t 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont Architect Wiemazm/Lamphere Architects 346 Shelburne Street Burlington, Vermont -I - In response to a critical shortage of decent and attractive rental housing in the greater Burlington area, our company proposes to construct 240 garden apartments on land which it owns on Kennedy Drive, South Burlington. These units will be clustered on approxi- mately 40% of the site, leaving the balance undisturbed in order to preserve the natural beauty of the area. The units will by similar in quality and rentals to those already situated on Kennedy Drive. This submission has been prepared as part of the application for approval under the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regu- lations and specifically for the first step of the process, the Sketch Plan Review Hearing. General Information The past several years have witnessed a steady growth in the population of the greater Burlington area. Though not as dramatic as the 60's, nevertheless Chittenden County grew 11.8% between 1970 and 1975 (see Table I). During these years no new "Quality" apartment complexes have been constructed. In fact there has been a significant decrease in the number of rental units in the City of South Burlington. The conversion to condominium ownership of Forest Park Town Houses, Town Square Apartments, Georgetown Apart- mE1.1ts and the reportedly planned conversion of the Manorwc-ods Apartments removes 200 units of quality rental housing. This fact, coupled with the proposed new Digital Equipment Facility creates a severe rental housing problem. The Chittenden-County Regional Planning Commission has issued a -report (see Appendix) which indicates a serious unmet need in 1976 and a much greater need by 1980. We propose to construct up to 240 units on a 36.1 acre site. Present zoning regulations would allow up to 253 units on the property. 75% of the development is planned to be 2 bedroom units while the remaining 25% would be a mix of 1 and 3 bedroom units. -2- All construction would be done on the higher elevations of the site where the soils are best suited for development, leaving the lower areas in a natural state and preserving the beauty of the Potash Brook natural area. The complex will have a resident manager, laundry facilities for tenants, full maintenance staff and complete recreational facilities. It is intended that the complex will be self supporting and require few additional services, other than water and sewer, from the community. The complex will be designed to take advantage of the natural beauty of the site. Buildings, roads and parking lots will be located so as to minimize cutting and filling. Buil- dings will be clustered so as to leave the greatest possible portion of the site undisturbed. All utilities will be placed underground and building materials will be carefully selected by the architect in order to blend well with the natural setting. Our aim is to provide a unique rental housing complex of which South Burlington can be proud. 1 The Subdivision Regulations of the City of South Burlington raises many points which we have endeavored to consider in the design of the project. The following is a brief summary of how we plan to address the concerns outlined under Development Requirements and. Design Standards. Streets All roads in the subdivision are intended to be private and maintenance and repairs will remain the responsibility of the Landlord, Investors Corporation of Vermont. Roadways have been laid out so as to provide easy turning movements for all vehicles and particular attention has been paid to the fire protection needs of the development. Easy access will be provided for all emer- gency vehicles. Streets and parking lots have been positioned to conform with the existing topgraphy to the fullest extent possible. As one -3- can see from the site plan, most of the roadways follow along existing contour lines. Steep grades have been avoided. Ade- quate storm drainage will be provided along the streets in conformance with the requirements of the City Engineer.. All streets will be named and signs installed. In addition all buildings will be numbered for easy identification. Access to the subdivision will be provided at two points. A major access will be located immediately across Kennedy Drive from the new industrial access road. A secondary point of access, unconnected to the first, will be provided approximately 1200 feet to the southwest on Kennedy Drive in order to serve the units in this section. All roads will be paved with 2" of bituminous asphalt to a width of 20'. Two foot shoulders will be added along both sides of the road with slopes which conform with city standards. The streets will be designed to minimize the need for curbings in keeping with the character of the site. Since the road will be relatively narrow and relatively level the need for a sophis- ticated storm drainage system will be minimized. Culverts will be installed as necessary to facilitate drainage across the roadway. Walkways will be provided throughout the complex. These walkways will be constructed with surfaces which blend with the environment. Hard surfaces will be avoided wherever possible. A sidewalk will be placed along one side of the roadway leading in from Kennedy Drive. This walk will be wide enough to accom- modate two people walking abreast, small children on bicycles, etc.. Lot Layout The complex will be divided into three main clusters. This site organization was designed to minimize the areas to be cleared -4- for buildings. It will also serve the purpose of reducing the area of paved surfaces, shortening the necessary utility lines and offering the most pleasing setting for all of the units. Most units will look out on an undisturbed natural forest. Those areas selected for buildings are those which are relatively level and require the least cutting and filling, and which have suitable soils (sandy loam). These areas were identified during consultations with the County Forester. Pedestrian .Access Pedestrian trails, as previously mentioned, will connect all parts of the development. It is also planned to develop some pedestrian trails through the lower natural area so that residents may enjoy nature walks through the woods. This pedestrian trail network would also be connected to the City park land immediately to the west. Some additional cross country ski trails may also be developed on the site. Water The proposed complex will be connected to the South Bur- lington municipal water system. The lines will be of sufficient size to providc, domestic water service for all units and fire protection for the development as a whole. The connection to the municipal lines would occur near the intersection of Kennedy Drive and the new industrial highway. It is understood that this con- nection might not be possible in the event that South Burlington is unsuccessful in its application for Federal Public Works Funds. In this event the water service would be brought from the existing main on Williston Road along Kennedy Drive to the entrance to the development. Each building will have its own meter. Fire Protection The water system will be designed to conform with applicable -5- codes with regard to fire hydrant specifications, spacing and water pressure. Sewage Disposal The subdivision will be connected to the municipal sewage system. This connection would occur at the intersection of Kennedy Drive with the new industrial highway. It is understood that municipal mains will be constructed soon in this area along Kennedy Drive. It is anticipated that most of the subdivision can be sewered via a gravity system, though one or two sections may require small pumping stations. Utilitv Lines All utility lines, both those within the site and those leading to the site, will be placed underground. Outdoor Lighting 1 The streets, parking areas and some walkways will be lighted with fixtures that are carefully selected by the architect to be in harmony with the natural setting. Lighting for areas other than the principal streets will be somewhat subdued. Good illu- mination will be provided near the entrances to Kennedy Drive to insure safe driving conditions and turning movements. Storm Drainage Storm drainage will be engineered to conform_ fully with the standards of the City Engineer and the requirements of the State Environmental Officials. To the fullest extent possible storm water will be collected and piped to the natural drainage areas. Care will be taken that undue quantities of water are not dis- charged at any one time to Potash Brook. If necessary a holding pond will be developed where large amounts of storm water can accumulate and be discharged gradually to the stream. Existing M drainage ways will be preserved and culverts or bridges will be installed where necessary. All due care will be taken to eliminate erosion on the site and to prevent an overloaded condition of Potash Brook. Open Space and Recreation Approximately 2/3 of the site will be left in the natural state. These areas can be used for hiking and cross country skiing. No motorized vehicles will be permitted on site. Tennis courts, a swimming pool, a recreation building and related faci- lities will be constructed for the convenience of residents. Site Preservation and Landscaping Wherever possible natural features will be preserved. This includes existing gulleys and drainage ways, mature trees, all of the Potash Brook area and any other natural amenity. In certain open areas extensive landscaping is envisioned. Particular attention will be paid to the entrance to the project which will be landscaped in character with the rest of the site. The Potash Brook area, near the crossing of Kennedy Drive, would be cleared and excavated to provide an attractive pond site. This can also be used for ice skating in the winter (it will be near the recrea- tion facility). It is intended to retain all vegetation along Kennedy Drive itself in order to provide a natural buffer between the roadway and the development. Great care will be taken to minimize cuts and fills. All improvements will be done in conformity with existing topgraphy so far as possible. Where topsoil has been removed it will be replaced and reseeded or planted. Measures will be taken to prevent erosion during development and construction. We hope to obtain approvals and begin construc- tion early in the spring and do all of the land clearing and site -7- development work during the summer months. In this way topsoil, mulch, and other vegetation can be reinstalled long before winter. Appropriate erosion control improvements will be installed in and around culverts and drainage ways to prevent damage. Specific measures will be determined in consultations with the County Forester and District Environmental Engineer. Excavation and Grading All excavation and grading work and all embankment and slope work will be done in conformance with the South Burlington Sub- division Regulations. New fill, if needed, will be free of organic matter. Slopes will be constructed to conform with South Burlington standards. Energy Conservation The subdivision has been designed to minimize the areas of roadway and the lengths of sewer water and utility lines. All 1 possible tree cover is being retained to help reduce the amount of energy needed by occupants. In addition the new ASHRE Stan- dards for building construction will be incorporated in the design of the structures. Double glazing and extra insulation will be standard. We hope to construct a residential development which is the most energy conservative in the area. Some specific concerns have been expressed during consul- tations with the City Planner, County Forester, District Environ- mental Engineer, City Manager and neighborhood residents. Further- more a review of the file_ concerning a previously pr.oposed.(and conditionally approved) development on the site also indicates some concerns. The following is a brief summary of how the proposed development relates to some of these issues: -8- 1 Traffic The impact on traffic will be greatest at peak periods: from 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. and from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. on weekdays. Data obtained from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Com- mission indicates that Kennedy Drive, as of August 29, 1975 had a capacity of 2800 vehicles per hour and a traffic count of 7,790 vehicles per day. This represents about 32% of capacity. Counts on August 6, 1975 indicated volumes of 755 vehicles during the morning peak period and 1,271 vehicles during the afternoon peak period. Our own observations, conducted during the week of Decem- ber 20, 1976 at Manorwoods Apartments, which contains 76 units, indicated a count of 52 during the morning peak period and 60 during the afternoon peak period. This represents .68 vehicles per unit and .79 vehicles per unit respectively. We could then assume that 163 trips must result during the morning peak period from our proposed development and 190 trips during the afternoon peak period. This would result in a 21% increase in morning peak period traffic from present levels and a 15% increase in afternoon peak period traffic from current levels. Thus we would anticipate no traffic problems and little diminution in the excess capacity of Kennedy Drive. Utilities Concern was expressed in the past with the utility connections of the former BSSB apartment proposal. Water and sewer lines were shown crossing Potash Brook. Our proposed development would make a gravity sewer connection on Kennedy Drive near the new industrial road. It is our understanding that municipal lines will be installed along Kennedy Drive in this area in the very near future. Municipal water service would be obtained from the same point, if available. Growth The impact of the complex must be assessed. Available data indicates that the population of South Burlington has grown at a much slower rate than that set forth as a target in the compre- hensive plan adopted in 1974. In fact, the City has grown at about 1/5 the rate of the remainder of Chittenden County (see Table I). It seems readily apparent that the City can absorb a greater share of growth without straining its municipal facilities, as suggested by the Master Plan. Moreover, the number of rental units has actually declined severely in the last few years. This proposed development would only replace those units which have been taken off the market. And since the complex will contain its own recreational facilities and have relatively few students, the impact on the community will be minimal. Schools 1 All studies in the area indicate that apartments contribute relatively few students to the school system. Using figures developed by the South Burlington School Superintendent, we could anticipate an addition to the school population on the magnitude of .25 students for each unit or approximately 60 students. This would compare with an increase in school population of perhaps four times that number with conventional single family housing. At the present time it appears that there is excess capacity in the lower grades of the school system. A study is currently underway leading to the expansion of the high school, which must probably be enlarged in any event. It seems obvious that the proposed apartment development will make an insignificant contri- bution to the school population. In fact studies show that rental units, of the type planned, are the only residential development from which a community derives a monetary surplus. In other words, the cost to the community will be zero. i -10- If not, the water main would be broughL along Kennedy Drive from Williston Road to the approximate location of the new industrial road intersection. We would bring the water service in from this point. No lines would cross Potash Brook. Any other utility lines (power, telephone, cable T. V.) would also be installed underground. Windthrow and Poor Soils A serious windthrow hazard in the lower portions of the site had been identified in the previous development scheme by the County Forester. This area is also noted for its poor soils. Consultations with Environmental Commission personnel and the City Planner have resulted in a complete revision of the site plan over the past two months. Improvements will be constructed only on good soils in the higher elevations. This will minimize wind - throw. Care will be taken to stay well away from root system of mature trees. In areas where root damage is unavoidable. The trees will be cleared and the area replanted. Appendix Table I (Population Trends) Project Summary Housing Report (CCRPC) Projection of School Enrollments Traffic Report (CCRPC) Table I Population Trends 1970 11975 Chittenden County 99,131 110,868 Burlington 38,633 41,567 South Burlington 10,032 10,246* Source Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 1976 estimate 1976 Population Estimates - South Burlington 27. annual growth based on 1970 census 11,297 Same rate as Chittenden County 11,452 Regional Plarmi g Estimate - Actual 10,246 Federal Goverment Revenue Sharing Foznula 9,983 % Increase 11.8 7.6 2.1 Project Summary Number of Units 240 75% 2 Bedroom %/ 5 25% 1 & 3 Bedroom Location Kennedy Drive Site 38.8 acres 36.1 Multifamily 2.7 Cormymrcial Zoning Residential, 7 units per acre Permitted Units 253 Soils Adams & Windsor - higher elevations Enosburg - Whateley - lower elevations Utilities Municipal Sewer Municipal Water Green Mountain Power Project Cost $5,000,000 Recreational Facilities Tennis Courts Swimming Pool Recreation Building Nature Trails PROJECTION OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS IN SOUTH BURLINGTON AS OF OCTOBER 25, 1976 PREPARED OCTOBER 25, 1976 AC11JAL PROJECTIONS 1976-77 ff _ 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 K-5 i 1032 1016 982 990 972 6-8 692 629 593 533 527 9-12 910 935 940 F 915 859 Sub -Aggregate 2634 2580 2515 2438 2358 ~} Tuition 71 56 53 60 60 Sub -Totals 1032 1016 982 990 972 692 629 593 533 527 981 991 993 975 919 Sub -Aggregate 2705 2636 2568. 2498 2418. RIDGEWOOD 6 14 23 32 r i Fr of units to 4 8 12 16 be constructer: 6 13 21 29 unknown MEADOW BROOK f 5 10 � 15 f # of units to t (WJOY). 3 7 10 be constructed 5 9 13 unknown i p _ t DUNIONT 6 I S j I 11 1 13 ` r 5 7 9 11 i r J i 8 1 24 —? � � -- —= MEADOWOOD AT 8 12 I 23 21 SPEAR 7 ' 14 15 16 8 18 26 34 r DESLAURIER 5 7 i PROPERTY 3 4 CONIP ! ETED APARTMENTS 4 i 6 3S GO 81 34 DEVELOPDIENT 4 26 , 44 ! 50 27 TOTALS 6 35 61 ( 79 ; 48 TOTAL INCLUDING 1038 _ 1054 1042 I 1071 1006 TUITION 4, 696 655 637 583 , 554 DEVELOPMENTS 987 1026 ` 1054 1054 i 967 i AGGREGATE 2721 2735 2733 2708 2527 TOTAL INCLUDING 1038 1054 1042 101 1006 DEVELOPMENTS & I 696 655 ' 637 583 554 EXCLUDING TUITION 916 970 1001 994 9 o 7 �GREG.ATE I -- 2650 --! - 26 `? i 26so--- SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IIMPACT OF DEVELOPMENTS ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT October 25, 1976 1. DUMONT DEVELOPMENT i Total number of homes constructed to date 27 Average number of homes constructed annually 6 Number left to be constructed 56 Number of homes anticipated in development 83 Units x number of School Age -Children Number of students 24 units 24 x 1.4 33.6 Grade Level 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 #Units/Students " 6/8 6/9 6/8 6/9 K-5 3 6 S 11 6 1 2 2 3 7-8 1 3 5 6 9-12 3 5 11 Total 8 16 _8_ 23 31 2. MEADOW BROOK (wJOY) Units x number of School Age Children Number of students 25 2 B.R. Units 24 x .25 6 25 3 B.R. Units 25 x 1.4 35 Total 41 Grade Level '1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 #Units/Students 13/13 13/14 14/14 K-5 5 10 15 6 1 2 3 7-8 2 5 7 9-12 5 9 13 Total 13 26 38 -- n '7C IQ7 , 3. RIDGEWOOD Units x number of CChihi School Age Children 26 2 I.R. Units 26 Number of x .25 69 3 B.R. Units stu,_'.ents 7 14 lots 69 x 1.4 14 x 2 96 28 Grade Level Total 131 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 #Units/Students 13/16 19/24 20/25 20/25 K-5 6 14 1 23 32 2 7-88 9- 12 6 6 9 14 Total 16V 13 35 21 29 4. MEADOWOOD AT SPEAR 56 77 Units x number of _ School Age Children 41 Units Number of students 41 x 1.88 Grade Level 1977-78 1978-79 77.0b 1979-80 1980-81 #Units/Students 12/23 1212-) 12/23 5/8 K-5 6 2 12 23 21 7-8 5 4 1 -7 9-12 11) 8 14 9 18 Total 23 44 26 34 .5. PROPOSED APARTMENTS FOR DESLAURIER PROPERTY G4 71 Units x number of. 77 2 B. }2. Units School Age Children 77 x .25 N Number of students Grade Level 1977-78 1978-79 19 #Units/Students 48/12 29/7 K-5 5 6 7 1 7-8 1 9-12 1 j 12 15 Chittenden Co -Linty Regional Planning Commission P.O. BOX 108, 58 PEARL STREET ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 802 658-3004 September 19, 1975 Mr. Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Ward; Per your written request dated August 29, 1975, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission staff is forwarding a traffic analysis of existing con- ditions for Kennedy Drive, the Kennedy Drive -Hinesburg Road intersection, and the Kennedy Drive -Dorset Street intersection. The following is a discussion of our analysis. Kennedy Drive Kennedy Drive currently has 40 feet of pavement, curb -to -curb, with two travel lanes marked 16 feet wide and 4 foot shoulders. The capacity of this roadway at Level of Service (C) is approximately 2800 vehicles/hour (VPH) . _ Based on 24-Hour mechanical traffic volume counts (see attachment 1), Kennedy Drive presently carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 7790 vehicles/day (VPD) . The peak hour volume is approximately 900 VPH which results in a Volume/Capacity (VIC) ratio of 0.32 . This ratio indicates that Kennedy _ Drive is currently operating at about 32% of capacity. Therefore, this roadway should be able to handle a considerable amount of future traffic volume growth. Kennedy Drive - Hinesburg Road Intersection Based on intersection turning movements collected for this intersection (see attachment 2) on November 27, 1974, an intersection capacity and a Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio was calculated for the P.M. peak period. The following table illustrates these results. ... Serving the Municipalities of .. . Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond St. George Shel')urne So. Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski Mr. Richard Ward September 19, 1975 Page Two Approach Approach V/C Approach Volume (v) Capacity (c) Ratio Kennedy Drive 235 East (P.M.) 207 883 . West (P.M.) 294 668 .440 40 Hinesburg Road North (P.M.) 225 532 .423 South (P.M.) 137 253 .542 Assumptions 1) Intersection Capacity at Level of Service (E) . 2) Calculation based on methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. 3) See attachment 2 for complete intersection volume/capacity analysis data. In concluding the analysis of this intersection, it appears that under existing conditions the intersection is operating at about 50% of capacity at the most con- gested approach. If future traffic volume growth increases this congestion to a level of 80% - 90% of capacity, then minor intersection reconstruction and/or readjusting the light phases of the traffic control devices should increase the potential capacity and reduce the V/C ratio to an acceptable level (less than 80% of capacity) . Kennedy Drive - Dorset Street Intersection Based on intersection turning movements collected for this intersection (see attachment 3) on November 27, 1974, an intersection capacity and volume/capacity (V/C) ratio was calculated for the A.M. and/or P.M. peak period. The following table illustrates these results. Approach Approach V/C Approach Volume M Capacity (c) Ratio Kennedy Drive East (P.M.) 341 480 .710 Interstate 189 West (P.M.) 273 734 .372 Dorset Street North (P.M.) 319 505 .631 South (P.M.) 344 512 .672 Assumptions: 1) Maximimum intersection capacity relates to a signalized intersection with balanced V/C ratios. 2) 64 second cycle length. Mr. Richard Ward September 19 1975 Page Three Assumptions (continued) 3) Kennedy Drive - East Approach; 28 second green time. Interstate 189 - West Approach; 28 second green time. Dorset Street - North & South Approach; 28 second green time. 4) Calculation based on methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. 5) See attachment 3 for complete intersection volume/capacity analysis data. According to the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices For Streets And Highways, traffic control signals are required at an intersection generally if the requirements of the appropriate warrant describing the intersection are exceeded. For this particular intersection, Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume is appropriate. The specific requirement is that for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the major intersecting street (Kennedy Drive & Interstate 189 Exit Ramp) have a two-way hourly traffic volume greater than 500 VPH and the minor intersecting street (Dorset Street) have a one direction hourly traffic volume greater than 150 VPH (either approach direction can be used for the same 8 hour period) . Presently, traffic flow at the Kennedy Drive - Dorset Street intersection appears to be exceeding this criteria during the morning and afternoon peak periods. In concluding the analysis of this intersection, the Regional Planning Commission staff strongly recommends that the City of South Burlington initiate a more detailed analysis of the Kennedy Drive - Dorset Street intersection relative to the need for traffic control signals. The Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices For Streets and Highways is the adopted standard for all Vermont roadways. If further analysis indicates that the requirements of Warrant I are being exceeded, then signalization of this intersection should be considered. Proposed Twin Oaks Development Based on accepted national averages published by the Institute of Traffic Engin- eers, it is estimated that the proposed (110)townhouse units will generate approx- imately 60 left turn movements on Kennedy Drive during the P.M. peak period. These left turn movements must oppose approximately 400 VPH traveling eastbound on Kennedy Drive. Because of the extremely wide travel lanes (16ft.) and shoulders (4 ft.) , most through vehicles traveling westbound should be able to maneuver around left turning vehicles. If this situation does not occur, then it is recommended that Kennedy Drive be remarked to provide two travel lanes 11 feet wide with 4 feet shoul- ders and a middle lane 10 feet wide exclusively for left turn movements. ' Mr: Richard Ward September 19, 1975 Page Four In either case, there appears to be no serious problem, from a traffic engineering point of view, in allowing the use of Twin Oaks Drive as the entrance for the pro- posed townhouse development. If there are any questions concerning this analysis or our conclusions, please don't hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, BRUCE E. HOUGHTON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER BEH/k s s CC: Mr, C, Harry Behney, Regional Commissioner ' Attachments (3) -W C,) r - -r, i-- . _j t7. 0 C,") N r ".I CD I-J) F.- 0 0 C) cz w- w CO rj C) . . . . . . t Q CO "M P, 0 17.1 Cr'! L-,,-.1 0 ID 0 o r v o 1--:1 al Pq L J IN . . . . . . 4 . . . . . Vj 0 A M 2 I= C. Ld 0- UJ P C.) 7: Q 7' !7--'; CD -:1 , 0 0'- 1771 CD c-, ..ice!nl, Q -.0 G., iD vs M U) hl CD 0 0 04 M Ld Q to CQ . . . cj . . . . . . G-1 D 1: 0 01 co b, G. ow 171 0? K LU PI 17 LO K I CC zy LWI L-j Is LA 17! CD Ls 0 CD ko CD CD CD c— 0 l.--li 17! t7f. 'P71 --:i 7 CD . . . . . . U,Acj . . . . . . C: b j W LL LL- C-1 L A 0: 00 A A I/ .-I . ..... Z. fZ IT U CO !7 CE t:2; fl! �E: IM. 1:2 U �-4 F.-4 1-4 -D 17.1 CL D" Do CE Z.- IM ;M 1:-:l 7,7 1:71 !T- 17.1 CD on v A P am Ed CIL M, L.L Z, LJ Ld LJ WA Q 1 Ll Q- 17 EE A P co W A 01 F- ow A W 5) EE A ro Q A K co ol A ro Li 07 Z 07 Q 00 07 07 17 07 Q 07 17 17 17 X Q M C-*l Q'I 17C Z: 0 CO C- W S.L. !-.t !7E _a., 07. "ON REGIONAL PLAN Completion Report, CPA-VT--01-1002 (2Ja) July 1976 HOUSING The preparation of this report was financially aided through contributions of eighteen communi- ties in Chitterden County and through a federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Urban Planning Assistance Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, and through a grant from the Agency of Development and Community Affairs . CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 58 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a current survey and analysis of the housing market change in Chittenden County. This work has drawn heavily on previous studies in the housing field by this Commission (See appendix for listing) . The report addresses the housing needs within the region through 1980 as these needs relate to the current market. General strategies for meeting housing needs are suggested. It is the purpose of this report to be of use to those citizens of the region who are concerned with the production and marketing of housing. i The housing program for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission exists because of the circumstances presently surrounding that element of our environ-- ment . The reservoirs of decent, safe and sanitary dwelling units in this region are not sufficient to house its present population. In addition, accelerated production is needed to m6et the needs of this region's expanding population through the year 1980. Alleviating the shortages and shortcomings that we are presently experiencing and see in the near term to 1980 requires the combined efforts of builders, developers, financiers, local government officials, private citizens, architects, realtors, lawyers, non-profit, 1 i m it e d dividend and profit motivated sponsors. All have a role to play in the housing process. This Commission, recognizing the regional needs, has established six basic goals towards which our efforts are directed. They are: 1) To adequately house all of the Region's people. 2) To create and/or maintain sound, viable neighborhoods in the process of housing these people. 3) To increase the supply of decent, safe and sound housing units numerically, especially for low and moderate income families and individuals. 4) To take steps to preclude the abandonment of properties in our area. 5) To expand the range of housing opportunities geographically for the Region's people. 6) To take steps to simplify governmental processes leading to housing starts. In the decade of the 6O's, Chittenden County increased its housing supply by 8,201 units, or an increase of 36.5%. During the first five years of the 7O's, that supply was increased by 4,442 units or 14.500. The figures for population change for cor- responding periods indicate an increase of 24,706 people or 33.2% during the 6O's and an estimated 13; 123 additional people or 13.2% during the 1970-1.975 period. Based on housing conditions and supply in 1970, the Region had an additional housing unit need estimated at 2,193 units. That figure as of January 1, 1976 had increased 2,942 units . The net result indicates that our housing production new, rehabilitation, alteration and additions - is not keeping pace with our needs. Table 1 indicates housing supply by community based on the U.S. Census of Housing 1970, adjusted to reflect building permit activities by communities for the period 1970-1975. Table 2 reflects the estimated housing units needed by community as of January 1, 1976. Table 3 projects the additional housing units needed by community on a cumulative basis to January 1, 1980. Table 4 indicates the change in single family and multi -family housing by community, expressed in percentages. Table 5 deals with estimated population by community for January 1, 1976 and projected population by community for January 1, 1980, as they relate to the estimated additional housing units needed. The essence of the housing situation is not difficult to identify or even document. Good housing is scarce. There is not enough of it at an appropriate price to allow everyone to have his or hec share. Table 6 is the result of a survey by this Commission to identify what is available for sale within the area and those units"asking price as it relates to income levels of the region. Table 7 graphically demonstrates this situation. The solution is apparently simple - build or rehabilitate the old for more housing of the kind needed. This is easier said than done. The economic restraints of the last two to three building seasons is a factor. The lack of positive federal committment to housing production is evidenced in appropriations to the Veterans Admin- istration, Federal Housing Administration (HUD) , and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) housing programs. -2- General strategies for improving housing production should include; 1) A federal policy committed to an annual goal of 2,600,•000 units of housing starts. This includes a revised annual goal of 1,200,000 units for those of low and moderate income and for middle income families who have been priced out of the market. Such a program could help assure an economic recovery. 2) A State presence in assistance to the housing industry through simplified permit procedures. The State should also consider an ombudsman for housing pro- duction. 3) A Regional Capital Improvement Catalog. Developed to assist communities within an area in programming such facilities as transportation, schools, parks, utilities and land use commensurate with housing production needs and the environment. 4) Updated local plans and bylaws (zoning and subdivision) to reflect needs and desires for all types of housing to be woven into the fabric of their communities } and to facilitate housing production. 5) Higher degrees of rehabilitation of older housing of both single family and multi -family types. This approach might help in providing more low and moderate income housing units but could z,.'_so aid in the preservation of historically and archi- tecturally worthwhile neighborhoods and housing units. 6) A clear statement by listers and assessors of those types of home improve- ments that do not affect an increase in the listed value of the property. 7) Technical planning assistance for housing generators through better knowledge about and use of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission development advisory service. 1 -3- TABLE 1 HOUSING SUPPLY BY COMMUNITY January 1, 1976 Units with Estimate 1 Total Units Other Current all 2 Over- 3 Replace- of Housing Seasonal Occupied +"vailable for + Vacant = Housing Plumbing crowded ment Housing Community Units Units Units Rent or Sale Units Stock Facilities Units Units Unit Supply Bolton 275 37 206 10 22 238 267 10 18 220 Burlington 12,685 83 11,856 545 201 12,602 12,201 764 1,248 11,354 Charlotte 873 105 607 19 142 768 702 39 210 558 Colchester 3,841 754 2 , 783 182 122 3,087 2,996 195 1,040 2,047 Essex 3,788 1 3,525 142 120 3,787 3,692 233 329 3,458 Hinesburg 827 117 643 10 57 710 671 42 198 512 I-Lntington 351 7 269 10 65 344 262 17 106 238 Jericho 866 16 761 22 67 850 823 57 100 750 Milton 1,858 17 1,549 58 234 1,841 1,688 147 317 1,524 Richmond 842 9 776 23 34 833 813 58 87 746 St. George 219 1 203 8 7 218 210 9 18 200 ri Shelburne 1,394 46 1,243 32 73 1,348 1,325 42 ill 1,237 So. Burlington 3,075 55 2,907 75 38 3,020 2,981 184 278 2,742 Underhill 559 100 409 21 29 459 445 27 141 318 Westford 419 7 360 14 38 412 374 25 58 354 Williston 1,079 36 975 34 34 1,043 1,014 50 115 928 Winooski 2,175 0 2,087 61 27 2,175 2,074 241 342 1,833 B ue 1' s Gore 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chittenden Cty 35,130 1,391 31,159 1,266 1,310 33,735 32,538 2,140 4,716 29,019 1 U.S. Census of Housing, 1970 Adjusted reflecting building permits 1970-1975. 2 The number of occupied units where the proportion of residents to rooms is greater than one to one are considered overcrowded 3 An estimation of the number of units that should be replaced (either through demolition and new construction or through rehabilitation) from the total housing stock is given in this column. An estimate has been made by including all units without one or more of the basic plumbing facilities (except seasonal units) and those units that are over„Crowded . 4 Current h0L,_01g stock less replacement units needed. I'ABLE 2 HOUSING NEEDS BY COMMUNITY January 1, 1976 Estimated 3 Housing Unit Community Demand 1 supply 2 Needs Bolton 210 220 + 10 Burlington 12,258 11,354 904 Charlotte 614 558 56 Colchester 2,845 2,047 798 Essex 3,605 3,458 147 Hinesburg 653 512 141 Huntington 273 238 35 Jericho 773 750 23 Milton 1,574 1,524 50 Richmond 792 746 46 St. George 205 200 5 Shelburne 1,265 1,237 28 South Burlington 2,967 2,742 225 Underhill 415 318 97 Westford 366 354 12 Williston 992 928 64 Winooski 2,154 1,833 321 Chittenden County 31,961 29,019 2,942 1F'or purposes of this report, an overall vacancy rate of 1.3 for single family units and 5.6 for multi -family units is considered sufficient to allow for mobility, upkeep, .renovations, etc. Demand equals the occupied units plus either factor as appropriate. 2Current housing stock less replacement units needed equals supply. 3The estimated needs by community is a result of the difference between supply and demand as determined above. -5- Community TABLE 3 HOUSING NEEDS BY COMMUNITY January 1, 1980 Demand Supply Estimated Additional3 Housing Unit Needs Bolton 271 220 51 Burlington 12,652 11,354 1,298 Charlotte 785 558 227 Colchester 3,188 2,047 1,141. Essex 4,032 3,458 574 Hinesburg 832 512 320 Huntington 349 238 111 Jericho 984 750 234 Milton 2,005 1,524 481 Richmond 1,004 746 258 St. George 232 200 32 Shelburne 1,399 1,237 162 South Burlington 3,217 2,742 475 Underhill 527 318 209 Westford 469 354 115 Williston 1,112 928 184 Winooski 2,409 1,833 576 Chittenden County 35,467 29,019 6,448 1For purposes of this report, an overall vacancy rate of 1.3 for single family units and 5.6 for multi -family units is considered sufficient to allow for mobility, upkeep, renovations, etc. Demand equals the occupied units plus either factor as appropriate. 21975 Current housing stock less replacement units needed equals supply. 3The estimated needs by community is a result of the difference between supply and demand as determined above. TABLE 4 CIMNGE IN SINGLE FAMILY AND TVIULTi FAMILY MIX BASED ON OCCUPIED OR EXPECTED OCCUPIED UNITS EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGE ' 1.9701 19752 19803 Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi Community Name Family Family Family Family Family Family Bolton 83.2 16.8 84.5 15.5 84.5 15.5 Burlington 51.6 48.4 51.3 48.7 49.6 50.4 Charlotte 87.9 12.1 90.1 9.9 89.7 10.3 Colchester 80.4 19.6 79.9 20.1 79.3 20.7 Essex 81.4 18.6 77.7 22.3 77.3 22.7 Hinesburg 94.5 5.5 94.6 5.4 94.8 5.2 Huntington 93.1 6.9 94.8 5.2 94.5 5.5 Jericho 90.7 9.3 92.9 7.1 92.7 7.3 Milton 94.2 5.8 93.1 6.9 92.7 7.3 Richmond 82.5 17.5 84.3 15.7 83.5 16.5 St. George 97.5 2.5 98.0 2.0 97.4 2.6 Shelburne 88.3 11.7 89.9 10.1 89.5 10.5 South Buriington 82.7 17.3 82..4 17.6 81.4 18.6 Underhill 97.7 2.3 97.1 2.9 96.8 3.2 Westford 97.0 3.0 95.3 4.7 94.9 5.1 Williston 90.3 9.7 91.4 8.6 90.7 9:3 Winooski 53.8 46.2 55.8 44.2 55.0 45.0 Chittenden County 69.2 30.8 70.4 29.6 70.2 29.8 11970 U.S. Census of Occupied Units. 21970 U.S. Census of Occupied Units adjusted reflecting building permits, 1970--1975. 3CCRPC Projected mix reflecting historical building permit activity. -7- TABLE 5 ESTIMATED HOUSING NEEDS AND POPULATION 1975A 1975 Estimated 1980E 1980 Estimated Additional 1970 Avg. Family Size Estimated Housing Estimated Housing Unit Dwelling Unit Population Need Population Needs Bolton 3.26 672 +10 866 51 Burlington 3.41 40,429 904 42,052 1,298 Charlotte 3.75 2,276 56 2,894 227 Colchester 4.03 11,215 798 12,579 1,141 Essex 3.75 13,219 147 14,788 574 Hinesburg 3.76 2,418 141 3,084 320 Huntington 3.69 993 35 1,271 111 Jericho . 4.05 3,082 23 3,922 234 Milton 3.77 5,840 50 7,439 481 l�lo`hmond 3.60 2,794 46 3,544 258 St. George 2.98 605 5 680 32 Shelburne 3.64 4,525 28 5,043 162 So, 3uriingcon 3.65 10,246 225 11,502 475 Underhill 4.01 1,640 97 2,083 209 Westford 4.22 1,519 12 1,948 115 Williston 3.78 3,635 64 4,136 184 Winooski 3.40 7,096 321 7,932 576 Chittenden County 3.59 112,254 2,942 125,763 6,448 A 1975 Occupied dwelling unit x 1970 family size dwelling unit = 1975 Estimated Population. B CCRPC projections. t Income Level 0 - 3999 4000 - 5999 6000 - 7999 8000 - 9999 10,000 - 14,999 15,000 - 24,999 25,000 - 49,999 50,000 plus Unknown TABLE 6 INCOME LEVELS & HOUSING AVAILABLE Chittenden CountyA Distribution in % 26.2% 9.0% 9.7% 8.8% 18.3% 18.7% 5.5% .8% 3.0% HousingB Available in % E 1.5% .5% 3.9% 32.0% 48.8% 12.8% .5% � A 1974 Vermont Personal Income Tax Return County Distribution by Income class. Vt. Dept. of Taxes, 11-75. $Spring 1976 Survey by CCRPC. Factor of 2.5 x income level used. Sampling included, 203 units available for sale. TAKE ASKING PRICE OF HOUSES ON THE MARKET Source: CCRPC Sprtng Survey 1976 HOUSING REPORTS of CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 1) Meeting Housing Needs March 1969 2) Chittenden Comprehensive Housing & Community Development Program April 1969 3) The Housing Problem in Chittenden County June 1969 4) Chittenden Regional Problems, Values, Objectives and Goals for Future Growth August 1969 5) Housing Report 1970 July 1970 6) Housing Report 1971 July 1971 7) Housing Report 1972 July 1972 8) Housing Report 1973 July 1973 9) Housing Report 1974 July 1974 10) Housing Report 1975 July 1975 11) Housing Report 1976 July 1976 -li- NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND HEARING 10 VSA, Chapter 151 (Act 250) Pursuant to 10 VSA, §60811(b) notice is hereby made that Investors Corporation of Vermont, 100 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vt. filed an application with District Commission #It , on April 11, 1977 for a land use permit for the construction of a 220 unit apartment complex located on Kennedy Drive in South Burlington, Vt. Pursuant to 10 VSA, 96085 a hearing oven to the public will be held on May 13, 1977 at 2:00 at the Council Room at the South Burlington City Hall, ,South Burlington, Vt. District Environmental Commission # 4 * The District #4 Environmental Commission will hold a site inspection on location at 1:00 P.M. on the day of the hearing. All parties interested in participating are asked to meet at the site. 0 LAW OFFICES VILLA & HIRST JAMES G. VILLA RICHARD B. HIRST * Of Counsel Mr. Stephen Page Planning and Zoning Administrative Office South Burlington City Hall Offices South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: I.C.V. - Kennedy Drive Complex Dear Steve: 125 CHURCH STREET- BURLINGTON, VT 05401 802 656-6686 May 3, 1977 In marshalling our data prior to our next hearing this coming Thursday, I thought that I would seek to clarify some points through your office. It is our present understanding that the Commission has decided that fairness requires that priority of hearing final plat approvals be governed by that party who has secured preliminary approval first in time. Secondly, we are concerned that both you and the Commission understand that I.C.V. is applying for final plat approval as to the whole project, subject to phasing. As you know, I.C.V. has relied on this premise ever since preliminary approval, which conditioned final approval on ten separate items. We enclose a copy for your convenience. Items 9) and 10) frame the issue and it was always I.C.V.'s understanding that there would be final approval of the whole plat subject to 9) phasing and 10) site plan review. Based on these premises, I.C.V. has relied heavily in formulating its plans in order to comply with these and the other required factors. Needless to say, this has been at considerable expense to I.C.V. Each of the last two hearings (sketch and preliminary) were premised upon approval of the whole plat and voluntary phasing by I.C.V. with the guidance of the Commission. Lastly, I would like to address the question of legal documents. I.C.V. warrants that it owns the lands which are the subject of its application and there is no third person claiming any interest therein. We were unable, with good reason, to reach City Counsel before the last hearing. We consistently tried to reach him before that hearing. He told me that there were a flood of requests for approval of legal documents prior to the last hearing which taxed his outer limits. I have written him a letter, a copy of which is enclosed, and I.C.V. proposes and commits itself to having the documents required, to be reviewed in a form in every way satisfactory to Counsel. e Mr. Stephen Page -2- May 3, 1977 We wish to thank you and the Commission and those City Officials who have given us some imput and constructive criticism along the way. If there is anything that is further required, notify us as to those matters which can be effectuated before hearing; and you have, as to the balance, the oft used option of making final plat approval conditional as has been done with others in the past. We will certainly accomodate the Commission in any way reasonably possible. Every best wish. Sincerely, Ja s V1'1a JGV:csk Enclosure APARTMENTS FOR December 28,1976 ICV INCORPORATED 100 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT SITE PLAN REVIEW 11..70 Site Plan Approval Pertaining to Adequacy of Traffic Access Circulation and Parking Landscaping and Screening 1. Site Plan by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects dated Dec. 27,1976. Landscape Plan by Wiemann-Lamphere, Architects to be presented at hearing. 2. Specifications and Size of Plant Material to be on Landscape Plan. 3. Improvement Schedule Start Spring 1977 Complete Fall 1977 4. Estimated Cost - $1,S00,000.00 (Phase 1) S. Performance Bond as required. 6. Zoning - (See memo from Dick Ward) 7. Data Required by Planning Commission; Project - Phase I 84 units Phase II 72 units Phase III 84 units Ground Coverage Phase I 23,500 sq.ft. (approx.) Phase II 20,400 sq.ft. (approx.) Phase III 23,500 sq.ft. (approx.) Building Area Phase I 70,500 sq.ft. (approx.) Phase II 61,200 sq.ft. (approx.) Phase III 70,000 sq. ft. (approx.) Lot Size - 36.1 acre Coverage (total) 4% Parking Requirements Phase 1128 Phase II 110 Phase III 128 Parking Provided (as required) Front yard 75 Rear yard N.A. Side yard N.A. APARTMENTS FOR ICV INCORPORATED 100 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT -2- 8. City Engineer - Regarding Traffic; Memo from William Symanski dated December 23,1976. 9. Soil Test See Foresters Report Bearing Capacity adequate 10. Development Timetable (info provided at hearing). WIEMANN-LAMPHERE, ARCHITECTS 346 Shelburne Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 ICV Subdivision Considerable time has'been spent with the applicant outlining the issues likely to arise during the review of this project. Also, the file on the BSSB proposal (a similar 1�{ apartment project for the same site approved several years ago) "has been ' -a source of considerable information. The major considerations, which the applicant plans to address, relate to 11 growth rate, 2) impact on schools, 3) traffic and 4) utilities (water supply, sewage disposal, and storm drainage). Other considerations include 1' pedestrian trails and open space, 2� unstable soils in the vicinity of coordination of utilities and circulation Potash Brook, 3) systems with adjoining properties, 4) areas with a high water table, 5 visual/aural buffers from ennedy Drive, 63 commercial developmL,nt and associated lot lines. - M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Site Plan Reviews Date: December 23, 1976 Digital The architects are working with the city on the services. The entrance and circulation appears satisfactory. R.D.R. Enterprises The water main is along the west side of Shunpike Road. The installation of the service should be coordinated with the sewer construction. Kennedy Drive Apartments I would prefer a single entrance onto Kennedy Drive opposite the Industrial Road. The road opening requires state and federal approval. Provisions could be made to tie the entrance to the land to the west for an alternate entrance., Forest Park Apartments 1. A sidewalk should be constructed along Hinesburg Road. 2. There should be a grassed strip separating walkways from parking areas to facilitate snow removal and for pedestrian safety. 3. A sidewalk to the medical complex should be investigated. 4. Consideration should be given to relocating the entrance southerly so that development of the large parcel across the road would have its entrance opposite to this development entrance. Respectfully submitted, to 11"a William J. Sz manski, City Manager Proposed Apartment Complex Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vermont Developer Investors Corporation of Vermont 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont U �� Wiemann/Lamphere Architects 346 Shelburne Street Burlington, Vermont Engineer Webster -Martin, Inc. 1025 A Airport Drive South Burlington, Vermont -i- } The proposed development is a complex consisting of 240 garden apartment units,with associated recreational and admini- strative buildings,on a 36.1 acre site in South Burlington. The heavily wooded site is located on the westerly side of Kennedy Drive, near the intersection with Williston Road. Potash Brook, a small stream having its origin somewhat to the northeast of Kennedy Drive in South Burlington, runs through the property. The development would be constructed in three phases during each of the next three years. Phase I will consist of sixty-four two bedroom units divided among eight buildings. Each structure will contain four units on the first floor and four units on the second. The apartments will be electrically heated and metered separately, this being the surest inducement for energy conservation. However new and superior insulation techniques will, of themselves, help keep energy usage to a minimum. When fully completed the project will have a resident manager and maintain a rental office. Many recreational opportunities will be provided for residents including a large swimming pool, tennis courts, nature trails, recreational building, and a childrens play area. It is anticipated that the development will be the most self-contained residential community in the area. The site itself is an exceptionally fine parcel for residen- tial development. It is zoned residential multifamily by the City and benefits from all necessary municipal and private utili- ties. It is heavily wooded, primarily with softwoods, and adjoins a municipal park to the west. On a large portion of the site the soils are suitable for building and an attempt has been made to cluster the units in order to take advantage of the favorable soils. Clustering will also reduce the amount of actual con- struction, particularly cutting and filling, and so preserve the natural area. Over half the site will remain in a natural state. -2- �1 The development has been conceived in response to the serious housing shortage in the greater Burlington area. Intensive commercial and industrial development over the last few years has created the situation where many employees have difficulty finding housing. Future developments, including the proposed Digital Equipment plant, will serve to exacerbate this situation. A recent report on housing by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission indicates a housing shortage of 6,500 units by the year 1980. Our development will focus on upper middle income housing, similar to that which is disappearing through condominum conversions in the area, which seems to be a need which is not currently being met by other development pro- posals. The following is an attempt to assess the proposed develop- ment as it relates to the various criteria of Act 250: Pi -3- Criter. ion 1 The proposed development will not pollute the water or air. The wooded site is approximately 300 feet above sea level and no structures will be placed in a flood plain. Atmospheric emission from the complex will be insignificant since electric heating systems will be installed in the units. A gas fired hot air system will heat the recreation building, while the pool will utilize solar collectors. There will be no open burning or other incineration on the premises. Storm water will be the only discharge which will reach Potash Brook, a small stream which runs through the site. All other waste will be discharged through the municipal sewage system. The headwaters of this brook are further to the northeast of the site and the stream is not a component of a public water supply. Other than storm water and sanitary waste, no other discharge will emanate from the development. j With regard to water conservation, the toilets installed in the individual units will be of the water saving variety. Washing machines will be coin operated which will tend to minimize their usage. Water usage for comparable units in the area (see Table T) is well below the sixty gallon per user per day standard used by engineers in planning public sewer systems. With regard to flood hazards, the buildings will not be in any floodways. Furthermore the storm drainage system has been planned to minimize the impact of sudden surges in storm water. As much of the rain water as possible will be dispersed evenly along roadways and walkways. Parking lot storm water will be collected and dispersed through appropriately sized culverts to several of the natural drainage ways which presently cross the site. All outfalls will be designed to prevent erosion and catch basins will be engineered to trap sand and sediment. Furthermore the area -4•- of actual development is quite small in relation to the site as a result of clustering the units,so that run off will be much less than that from a conventional subdivision. Potash Brook is a significant natural feature in South Burlington. No development will occur within 125 feet of the brook. It is intended to leave the banks of the stream in a completely natural state with the small exception of the erection of a small footbridge as part of the nature trail. Criterion 2 The proposed development will be connected to the municipal water system in South Burlington. Both the municipal water system and the Champlain Water System by which it is served are well below their design capacities and are able to adequately serve the needs of the development. Table 1 demonstrates that water usage by comparable apartment units tends to be on the low side as compared with conventional single family homes. A letter indicating approval to connect with the municipal system, from the City Engineer, accompanies this application. Criterion 3 The proposed development will be connected to the municipal water system which is in turn served by the Champlain Water District. This District derives its water from Lake Champlain, a virtually unlimited supply. Presently the Champlain Water District is operating at approximately 50% of capacity. The proposed development will have a very small impact on the munici- pal water supply, which is also operating far below capacity, A letter indicating approval to connect to the municipal system, from the City Engineer, accompanies this application. Criterion 4 Soils of the Adams and Windsor series are found in those areas of the site most directly affected by the development, A soils map obtained from the Soil Conservation Service will be found in the Appendix. The soils have been deemed suitable for development both by the Soil Conservation Service and the County Forester. The remainder of the soils on the site are of the Enosburg and Whately series. Very little of the proposed development will be constructed on these soils. The Soil Conservation Service has been extensively consulted and will be designating appropriate methods of drainage and erosion control. Final placement of buildings on the Enosburg and Whately soils will be determined in conjunction with the advice of this agency. Cutting, filling, and other site modification has been kept to a minimum by clustering the units. Any filling will be accom- plished with suitable material free of large stones and organic matter. All areas of fill will be compacted in layers and, upon completion, will be covered with four inches of good topsoil, mulched, and seeded with the soil conservation mixture. All areas to be seeded will be heavily limed and fertilized in accordance with soil conservation guidelines. All surface drainage, when collected by means of a storm sewer, will be channeled to existing drainage ways which crisscross the site. Since the developed areas are relatively flat, curbings are not deemed to be necessary. This will permit storm water to dissipate gradually along the shoulders of the roadways. In larger paved areas the water will be collected in storm drains. Less than 18% of the area of the site will be improved. Site work is expected to commence during the late spring of each year. Roadways and parking lots would be completed by midsummer and immediately upon completion all areas disturbed by the construction will be mulched and seeded as previously indicated. Thus all cutting and filling work should avoid the wettest parts of the year in the spring and fall. 6 ... Criterion 5 The proposed development is fortunate to be located on Kennedy Drive, a roadway whose volume is currently far below capacity. Other than automobile traffic, no other means of transportation will be effected by the development. Moreover the concentration of dwelling units should have a beneficial impact on the county bus system since only one or two stops will be required to service 240 families. The impact on traffic will be greatest during the peak periods: from 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. and from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. on weekdays. Data obtained from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission indicates that Kennedy Drive, as of August 29, 1975 had a capacity of 2,800 vehicles per hour and a traffic count of 7,790 vehicles per day. This represents about 32% of capacity. Counts on August 6, 1975 indicated volumes of 300 vehicles during the morning peak period and 1,311 vehicles during the afternoon peak period. Data describing the results of the survey will be found in the Appendix. Our own observations, conducted during the week of Decem- ber 20, 1975 at Manor Woods apartments, which contains 76 units, indicated a count of 52 during the morning peak period and 60 during the afternoon peak period. This represents .68 vehicles per unit and a .79 vehicles per unit respectively. We could then assume that 163 trips must result during the morning peak period from our proposed development and 190 trips during the afternoon peak period. This would result in a 21% increase in morning peak traffic from present levels and a 15% increase in afternoon peak period traffic from current levels. Thus we would anticipate no traffic problems and little diminution in the excess capacity of Kennedy Drive. -7- Criterion 6 The proposed development will not create an unreasonable educational burden in South Burlington. Recent studies in the city indicate that apartments contribute relatively few students to the school system. Using figures developed by the South Burlington School Superintendent, we can anticipate an addition to the school population on the magnitude of .25 students for each unit or approximately 60 students for the entire development. This would compare with an increase in school population of perhaps four times that number with conventional single family housing. At the present time it appears that there is excess capacity in the lower grades of the school system. Furthermore a study is currently underway which will lead to the expansion of the high school, which must probably be enlarged in any event. It is expected that the high school population will reach a peak in a few years and decline thereafter. This would coincide with the full development of our project. It seems obvious that the proposed apartment development will make an insignificant contri- bution to the school population. In fact studies show that rental units, of the type planned, are the only residential development from which a community derives a monetary surplus. In other words the cost of the community will be zero. This is further demon- strated in Table II of the Appendix. Criterion 7 The proposed development will not place an unreasonable burden on the ability of South Burlington to provide municipal or governmental services. Obviously there are some needs which the community must fulfill: police protection, fire protection, streets, city management, library, etc.. However because of its size and the concentration of its units the development will proportionately reduce the demands on these services on a per capita basis. The interior streets will remain private, police and fire functions will be made simpler by virtue of the clusters and enough recrea- tional facilities are being installed to satisfy the demands of residents. Information in the Appendix also demonstrates the cost versus tax revenue aspects of the provision of governmental services to this development. It is clear that the City of South Burlington will derive a positive cash flow from the apartments. In com- parison with the demands placed on the community by such new projects as the University Mall expansion and the Digital Equip- ment plant, the demands of this proposed development are relatively insignificant. South Burlington is somewhat concerned at the present time with regard to the capacity of its sewage treatment plant in the airport area. Planning is underway to upgrade this plant to the secondary treatment level. This of itself will augument its capacity. At the present time the plant is operating at approxi- mately 67% of capacity. It is our understanding that, after taking into consideration all proposed projects in the City, including our proposed apartments, that the plant will operate at approximately 90% of capacity. As mentioned previously it is anticipated that unit water usage in this development will be somewhat lower than that which could be expected from conventional single family housing. Therefore our development should not unreasonably burden the sewage treatment plant, which must in any event be upgraded, and which probably will be enlarged in the future to accommodate the commercial and industrial expansion which has already taken place in the City. Criterion 8 The proposed development will occur in an area of the City which was once farmland. At the present time there exist in the vicinity no structures which could be identified as vestiges of another period. There are no historic sites in the immediate area. There is a natural area at the rear of the property, along Potash Brook. This portion of the land will be left undeveloped and in a natural state; it will not be disturbed by the construction of improvements. To the best of our knowledge there are no vital wildlife habitats or habitats of any endangered species in this area. In our opinion the proposed development will be an attractive addition to the City, well landscaped and compatible with its environment. Criterion 9 In our opinion subsections B, C, D, E, H, and L are not pertinent to this application. A. The City of South Burlington has not to date adopted a capital improvement program, though the City adopted a Master Plan in 1974. The Master Plan envisions a 2% per annum population growth dating from the base year of 1970; the actual Chittenden County growth rate may be substituted if it is higher than 2%. Available data indicates that the county growth rate has been sub- stantially higher than 2% (see Table III). The popu- lation projected for 1976 would then total 11,297 if the 2% growth rate were used and 11,452 if the Chittenden growth rate is used. The Chittenden County Regional J Planning Commission estimates the actual total population of the City of South Burlington in 1976 to be 10,246. Since 1970, South Burlington has increased 2.1% in population while Chittenden County has increased 11.8%. During this period of time the City has added substantially to its commercial and industrial base (see Table IV) this of itself has obviously created a considerable need for housing, a need which is being met, according to available data (see Table V), in other communities. There will be little impact from the proposed development on South Burlington's educational services. The elemen- tary school has adequate capacity to meet the needs of the development and the secondary school will experience a decline in population in future years. Thus the proposed development might cause the school to maintain its present population for a longer period of time, but will not, of itself, cause the school population to be significantly increased. Appendix B demonstrates the fiscal impact of the proposed development on the City of South Burlington. As previously mentioned the residents will make use of the various services provided by the municipality. However it would certainly be expected that their demands be of a lower magnitude than from residents of more conventional types of housing, since the units will be tightly clustered, the streets will be private, the development will provide its own recreational amenities, municipal street lights will not be necessary, etc.. Moreover it is expected that the tax revenues generated by the development will exceed its proportionate share of municipal expenditures. .. 1 F. The residential units in the development will be heated electrically. National surveys have shown that the only responsible inducement for energy conservation is individual metering of apartments. Indeed our own experience elsewhere indicates that the provision of heat by the Landlord is absolutely wasteful. Electrical heating has been found to be the only way of accomplishing individual metering in a project and yet insuring a satisfactory, long term supply of energy. However this is not to say the units will be expensive to heat. The roofswill be insulated to a value of R38 and the walls to R19. Floor slabs will be insu- lated and double glazing of windows will be standard throughout the development. Other measures will be instituted to prevent infiltration of outside air. Most of the existing trees on the site will be re- tained which should create a natural shelter from the wind. Exterior lighting will be designed to create a balance between safety and security and energy conservation. G. All roadways in the proposed development will remain private. Our company will retain the responsibility for all maintenance and repairs. The paved roadway surface will be 20 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders on either side. This will accommodate an easy flow of traffic and all emergency vehicles. The water main will be a municipal line up to the project meter,designated on the site plan. The City will receive a 20 foot easement for the maintenance and repair of the municipal line. The water lines have been engineered to conform with the requirements 1 of the City Engineer and the Insurance Underwriters. Fire hydrants will be installed as noted on the site plan. The sewer line serving the development will be private up to the manhole on Kennedy Drive.Our company will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of that line. No pumping stations will be necessary for sewage disposal. Electrical service will be brought in underground from existing lines on Williston Road. J. As noted elsewhere, letters indicating approval to connect to municipal water and sewage systems, issued by the City Engineer, accompany this application. Other data submitted in the Appendix demonstrate that the develop- ment will not impose an unreasonable financial burden on the City. In fact South Burlington will receive a positive cash flow from the project. K. The impact of the proposed development on most public investments has been addressed elsewhere in this sub- mission. The Burlington International Airport lies a short distance from the development but it does not seem possible that it would be effected. As mentioned previously, the apartments will be nearly self-sufficient and cause few demands on South Burlington, the State of Vermont or the United States Government. Criterion 10 The City of South Burlington has adopted a Master Plan under Chapter 91, Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated. On February 15, 1977 preliminary approval for the subdivision was granted by the South Burlington Planning Commission. A copy of the preliminary approval motion will be found in the Appendix. APPENDIX A, Soils Map B, Economic Impact C, Estimate of New Jobs in South Burlington D. Planned Housing Units in South Burlington E. Copy of Planning Commission Preliminary Approval F. Kennedy Drive Traffic Data Table I Water Usage Table II School Impact Table III Growth Data Table IV Growth at Tax Base Table V New Residential Units Table VI Estimate of Housing Needs by Community CHiTTEINDLJd (.;Uk!, 724 000 FEET APPENDIX i r lye, Fu y cu Wo (v FuS'lil h�N�r 8s (11 AdA Ie��/., 5�,� HIE 141E Br f11C LI AgA o I , U y ` Ad' Aut / fERY Wo ~`~ 8 GREENM AUNT 7� e o ° NIL A c Fu I� J huC a Ad 6 Lf /;- Le �tio O AdA HIE HIE BIB � ' ' 1 gir o -• p �, AdD Br . Ad % HIfS Le FIID AHEuj Filr. �F Fu E HID AdE ft �S AdA jLf�iAdA o BIB �� AdA' : IID \ 6 t / y VET �I hE - AdA NATION \u Cy� c FU G' MyB, ,I AdA G i J J� -CB M ^r t SC Br:. ,An\ .,/"YC_ • t ,`1 y,i - .. Br, ) Auiia ch `o m t r AdE A dE, AdA FI.I t f �Yai! Fu f E E F 1. m �• _ f w, Z AdA ,• V r r •r( r ,' ,,.., .I w I r• t Z- v VeB /. ' .A,.L .e' r• I /'-.Sk ! W FsC ' ' ` �'`; "r Fdo �'' % ` S �TrI° � �:4tNG1 OY1°Y } a " �• , > N AuDtIA �r.� �, i i�� 0� bdA .r /�t�A"� • r DOA Z .a s Qd C r, 16 _r W to �1 �r Au New Eidridgo ° I •� 0r.�dA. l r AdA i ', ly 1, r' Y �. ,�•� v 1`. SChool s_.- .. i W DAdA- Bo dAr•.yy+.l l o G BIB ' Au U AdA o I ,.• •,—___� 1 . l rye 1 1 HnADdA RESUI?RECTION Ade, � I E CV/ - PAitK 11 C> ` w I fi HnA .� Ad- 'Lf `r � Ewl EwA F_wA - / AdB' ' N < HnN [J �� / I� I N E'tP Ad6 AdF, Eiv Hr4B / Vl ' AdB \ti EwB S AdA A t Far eiP ScA y QdA HnD ( AdD +' HnD - AdD C / j t FsB a` $ AdA DdA �I EwA t AdA BIB VaC r o t r� HnE, AdA t AdA v �I AdDt �! �.. j N AdA Pa BIA HnD .0 rj Vr'I' J . m IN9 ,,fy, HnB UDnB / % nD „ UdA AdA H q til, i \'O N^C at,P HnC v• a¢, es; s l IJ t; I HnA tl dA 6 Lhs" lei HnE ^ Ew7 �HnB vrC J . Q MUD Le Cv w c t' nD Ddr1 69 90� Cv , MuD T BIA TeE, HnC Hn Hn ' d o AdS-r1,. Ad .HnC s\rf, UeF3 I o i _J-0_ APPENDIX B PROJECTED ECONOMIC IMPACT The latest Annual Report for the City of South Burlington indicates the per pupil cost of education for the 1975 - 1976 school year was $1,378.28 and $1,562.30 for the elementary school and secondary school respectively. Municipal taxes provided 72.7% of these costs or $1,002.18 and $1,135.99 respectively; the remainder was obtained from the State of Vermont and other sources. At full occupancy the proposed apartment complex would contribute an estimated 60 students to the school system. In current terms this would cost the City $40,087.20 for elementary pupils (40 x $1,002.18) and $22,719.80 for secondary pupils (20 x $1,135.99) or a total of $62,807.00. The real estate taxes generated by our project, at current rates, are estimated to be $120,000.00. With regard to other municipal costs, the Annual Report offers the following budgets: Councilmen Police Highway Budget 661,665 384,375 408,355 1,454,395 Receipts 274,805 70,855 148,225 493,915 To Be Raised From Taxes 386,860 313,490 260,130 960,480 The 1975 Population was estimated to be 10,246 by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. If we allow 17o growth during 1975 and 1976 we obtain 10,452. The per capita expenditure, raised by taxes, during 1977 for the above categories would be 960,480 _ 10,452 = $91.89. Our apartments, at full occupancy, would contain an estimated 600 persons (240 x 2.5). If we allow a normal vacancy of 2% we obtain a net residency of 588. The resulting cost to the City in 1977 terms would be 588 x $91.89 = $54,031. -17- Thus the economic impact on South Burlington, in current terms, in 1980 would be: Projected Taxes $120,000 Less: School Costs 62,807 Municipal Costs 54,031 116,838 Surplus $ 3,162 Note The addition of the Digital Plant, the University Mall expansion, additions to the Ramada Inn and Sheraton, the Paul Graves motel, Friendly Ice Cream and others to the Grand List should make the surplus much larger. APPENDIX C NEW JOBS IN SOUTH BURLINGTON 1977-1980 University Mall 280 Motels 30 Digital 1500 ICV Office Building 50 Branch Bank & Restaurants 25 MS With natural growth say 2000 In 1970, according to Vermont Facts and Figures, South Burlington contained 2824 year round z�ousing units and a population of 10,032 for an average of 1 dwelling unit per 3.55 people. The creation of 2000 jobs might therefore be expected to yield a demand for 563 new housing units, discounting the demand resulting from in -migration of residents who work elsewhere. N -- .L 'a APPENDIX D PLANNED HOUSING UNITS SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 1974 44 1975 21 Actually Constructed 1976 37 1977 212 1978 183 Approved or Proposed 1979 144 1980 130 The South Burlington Master Plan calls for construction of 798 new housing units by 1980 in order to satisfy needs generated by a 2% (planned) growth rate, and a mix of 507o houses and 50% apartments. The total number of approved or proposed apartments is 417 units which compares with a planned number of 481 units. Furthermore the Master Plan probably did not contemplate the conversion of 200 existing units into condominiums, which leaves South Burlington 264 units short of its goal. .. Z 0 .. APPENDIX E PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1977 } The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 1977 in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. Members Present William Wessel, Chairman; Sidney Poger, David Morency, Kirk Woolery, James Ewing Members Absent Frank Lidral, Ernest Levesque Others Present Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Dave Krieger, free Press; Peter Judge, Paul Sprague, :ICV; Pat Iaf rate,. Bill Schuele- The 'meeting was called--tb =order' -by �hair1]ian_Wesse3_-at �7:40 -p_m:-=- Continuation of Public Hearing on Pre-liminary Plat Application of Investors Corporation of Vermont A revised plat of the proposed development was shown. Revisions included a walkway along the stream, the sidewalks for the later phases, the location of the pool and community buildings, and an adjacent lot line. 2Ir. Ewing asked if the agreement concerning the curb cut had been made with Mr. Dumont. Mr. Judge replied that it was still a verbal agree- ment, -not a -formal one, because he had not yet had time to meet with Mr. Dumont to work out a location and other details. He said that he expected Air. Dumont to be in agreement, however. Prompted by a question from Mr. Page, several points were discussed. Mr. Judge said that they had been thinking about creating a pond by digging near, not damming up, the stream which runs through the property. He said that there were three reasons that they had been considering this action. It would 1) create aesthetic interest, 2) be incorporated into the recreation area, and 3) possibly serve as a holding pond for storm drainage. It was agreed that this action would have to be discussed with several other boards, such as Water Resources. The question of where the public access to the pedestrian trails would be was also brought up and it was suggested that the office building parking lot might be a good place since the public would be wanting access on the weekends. Following a short discussion of site plan changes, r,r. Foger moved thet the South Burlington Planning Commission Approve the Preliningry Plat forInvestors Corporation of Vermont, as depicted on a plan entitled. "Site Plan -Kennedy Drive Ana tme is for ICV Cor,pontion, South Purlinpton Vermont". This augroval is based on positive findings reached by the Commission under the 14 general standards for PUD evaluation and the specific standards for RPUD evaluation, These findin;--s and api)rovals are G/ contingent upon the following conditions and stipulations: 1) The following drafting corrections shall be made, prior to warning for final plat approval: acreage of the three lots, clearer demarcation of existing wooded areas, encroachment at northeast corner, parking stalls, aislewidths and roadways shown consistently to scale, aisle widths to be at least 24 feet where there are 2 rows of parking, relocate parking shelter from over water line, show deceleration lane at entrance, indicate place for school and Chittenden County Trans- portation Authority bus stop pending Bruce Haughten's approval, show rear lot line for lot #2, show intersection of ICV. Dumont. Citv roperty lines. 2) The siting of all buildings, parking areas, and other structures shall be in accord with the recommendations of the County Forester and Soil Conservation Service so as to minimize the windthrow hazard. and to insure that soils with developmental limitations are avoided (i.e. e. hiph water table. or sprin 3)- The design, layout, and specifications of utilities,- such as _ water, sewer, and - storm -d raina-ge,-as well --as roadways, shall be -reviewed —=-- and- approved -by she City: Engineer, taking' -into account the "comments --of the -fire chief- memo -dated-2 2 77= , --prior -to warning for final -plat - f approval. 4) The School Board must certify the ability of' the City -Is school system to accomodate the school aged children anticipated from the entire project, or any phases thereof._ 5) The following documents must be submitted prior to warning for _ final plat approval: a) draft of easement for-ccommon use of westerly curb cut. b) draft of easement for common use of single curb cut to lots 1 & 2. c) draft of a dedication for a strip of land along Williston Road. d) draft of pedestrian easement, to connect Kennedy Drive to City Park land. e) necessary utility easements_. 6) The final plat shall show the particular areas of the plat which relate to the documents described above. 7) The exact location of the westerly access shall be determined by the City Engineer. The avnlicant shall make this curb cut available to the abuttor for access purposes, without restrictions,_and for a nominal fee i.e, 61.00 . 8) A sidewalk shall be extended continuing from YeanedyDrive, across the entire Williston Road frontane. -22- 3) 9) A developmental timetable. speai iron the start and completion dates for construction of buildings and site improvements shall be submitted prior to warning, for final plat approval. , 10) All phases of the project are subject to site plan review. The motion was seconded by'Mr. Morency and passed unanimously. Reconsideration of proposed comprehensive plan amendments (returned by Citv Council with comments). Mir. Wessel gave some background on this subject, saying that the pro- posed amendments had been sent to the City Council, but that they had not acted on them and had, instead, merely commented. He explained that the failure to act constituted disapproval and that they (the Planning Commission) would have to begin again. ter. Page had attended the City Council meeting and so was asked what the issues were. He replied that the major confusion was in regard to the role of Williston Road. Was it a through street or a "+o'•street, providing access to abutting properties? At this point Mir. Morency and Mr.-Poger agreed that they would -like a_ _ letter -covering the -disapproval -and the reasons for it.- They felt -that==- the�City Council should specify -What -they did not -like -so that the Planning Commission could deal -.with it.-=11r:�Ewing=agreed.: ;.Ir. Morency moved that they request, the City Council to reply -.in writing', with their considered 'ud emeht to the South Burlington Planning Com- mission's letter of November regarding egarding the amendments to the 1 transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. J The motion was seconded by Xr. Poger and passed unanimously. Committee Reports Before the -Committee Reports, Ifr. Pat Iafrate spoke to the Planning__ Commission about building_a model of traffic flow in.South Burlington with the object of.. aiding -.in the decision-mking process. It would be done with the aid of a computer. Mr. Iafrate offered his time on a part-time basis and said that he would try to obtain free computer time if possible. He explained that he would start with a simple intersection and work up from there, with the rate of growth depending on his time and the computer time. With the aid of such a model, the Planning Commission could more easily assess the impact of certain actions.on traffic flow. Mr. Iafrate said the cost of a CPU minute is approximately 37.00 and that,a typical run might take 30 minutes. The first couple of times would need polishing, too, he said, so that you could easily get to three times that figure before you had a "clean" program. He pointed out, however, that once the model was built, it would be good forever if it were kept up to date. lir. Woolery asked what the program was, and Trr. Iafrate replied that it was GPSS, or General Purpose Simulation System, and is used to evaluate any kind of flow, whether objects or people. 2ir. iiorency asked how one could verify the model, and Mr. Iafrate replied that it would be checked against the actual conditions. Mr. i•'orency 1 then asked how valid it was and how well it could be defended. Mr. Iafrate said that he really did not know, but he couldn't validate it 100,�. -23- Mr. C. Harry Behney August 13, 1975 Page Three then careful consideration should be given to light phasing and reconstructing the Williston Road approaches to provide an acceptable volume/capacity ratio and maintain good traffic flow on Williston Road. Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive Based on intersection turning movemen":s collected for each approach leg of the Old Farm Road - Kennedy Drive intersection (S�_ attachment 3) during the two major peak periods of the day, 7:00 .'� . M. - 9.30 N.M. and 3:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. , intersection capacity and volume-./capacit 7 ratios were calculated. The following table represents these resifts. Approach A, proach V/C Approach Volume (V) gopacity (C) Ratio Kennedy Drive East (A.M.) 427 1275 0.34 East (P.M.) 232. 1280 0.18 Kennedy Drive West (A.M.) 332 1325 0.25 West (P.M.) 286 1350 0.21. Old Farm Road South (A. M.) 45 683 0.07 South (P.M.) 37 680 0.05 Assumptions: 1) Maximum intersection capacity relax es to a signalized intersection. 2) Level of Service (E) and a Load Factor = J . 0 3) A minimum 60 second cycle time rec, aired . 4) A minimum 15 second green time re,.,uired for Old Farm Road approach. 5) Separate right -turn lane available on Old Farm Road approach. 6) Kennedy Drive approach = 20 feet. 7) Calculations based on methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1965. To consider signalization of this inter section, it must exceed the require- ments of Warrant 2,, lnterruption of Continuo�is Traffic, described in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices For StreF ' s and 1?i.*hways . The specific requirements were outlined in the above anal,,sis of Williston Road and Shunpike Road, Under existing intersection conditions, no approach volume exceeds those requirements. -24- Mr. C. Harry Behney August 13, 1975 Page Four It is concluded from this analysis that the Old Farm Road - Kennedy Drive intersection is adequate to handle existing traffic volumes without signal controls. Volume/capacity ratios are extremely low allowing for practically free flow of traffic. If there are any questions concerning this analysis, please don't hesitate to contact our office. V,-ry)truly yours, BRUCE E . HOUGHTON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER BEH/kss Attachments (3) CHITTEND£T� COY NTY RPGI')NA PI. Nr 'C OW -MISSION TRA , POR-f .)N ; 'i DY VEHICLE VOLUME COUN' ',UMMARY SHEET Date 8-6-75 Location Old Farm Road & Kennedy Drive Day Wednesday n ( Time 2.5 Hours from Indicate North by Arrow 412 410 744 2 A I I 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 AM. M, to M. Weather Partly Cloudy )ad Condition Dry Kennedy Drive 427 332_1— ' 330 373 ! 43 NOTE: AC TO R: Peak Period `V t (7:15 A.M. - 8:15 A.M.) o Cn �. O Peak Period Traffice Volume (Vehicles/period) Kennedy Drive - East Approachi = 200 Kennedy Drive - Wes Approach = 163 Old Farm Road - Soul `1 Approach = 2 6 MR -2.6- Table I 1976 Water Usage Georgetown and Manor Woods Apartments South Burlington, Vermont Georgetown (48 units) - Includes Pool (10,000 est) Feb. 68,100 7,900 19,200 4,900 May 52,000 5,700 20,400 6,300 Aug. 60,900 10,700 14,600 6,200 Nov. 55,500 6,100 10,000 5,700 146 GPD per unit 142 GPD w/o Pool Manor Woods 76 units Excludes Pool Feb. 21,400 27,900 27,800 20,000 May 22,000 24,200 24,800 21,400 Aug. 24,400 29,300 25,700 21,600 Nov. 25,100 31,500 27,600 22,200 100,100 (86,700) 84,400 92,400 77,300 354,200 2,656,500 (340,800) 97,100 92,400 101,000 106,400 396,900 2,976,750 107 GPD per unit 125 GPD = Average of both Georgetown and Manor Woods ( ) Indicates adjustment for long period 60 GPD = per capita usage used in engineering design 2.5 = estimated occupants in units 2.5 x 60 = 150 GPD normal dwelling unit expected usage -27- Table II PROJECTED SCHOOL Il,,1PACT Phase I 64 Units Construction May 1977 - January 1978 Occupancy January 1978 School Year Affected 1978 - 1979 Estimated Students 16 Distribution K - 8 11 9 - 12 5 Phase II 80 Units Construction April 1978 - January 1979 Occupancy January 1979 School Year Affected 1979 - 1980 Estimated Students 20 Distribution K - 8 13 9 - 12 7 Phase III 96 Units Construction April 1979 - January 1980 Occupancy January 1980 School Year Affected 1980 - 1981 Estimated Students 24 Distribution K - 8 16 9 - 12 8 Summary 78-79 79-80 80-81 K - 8 11 24 40 9 - 12 5 12 20 �h F -28- SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENTS ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 1. DUMONT DEVELOPMENT Total number of homes constructed to date Average number of homes constructed annually Number left to be constructed Number of homes anticipated in development Units x number of School Age Children 24 units 24 x 1.4 Grade Level 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 #Units/Students 6/8 6/9 6/8 K-5 3 6 8 0 1 2 2 7-8 1 3 5 9-12 3 5 8 Total 8 16 23 2. MEADOW BROOK (IVJOY) Units x number of School Age Children 25 2 I3. R. Units 24 x .25 25 3 P.R. Units 25 x 1.4 Grade Level -1977-78 1978-79 #Units/Students 13/13 13/14 K-5 5 10 6 1 2 7-8 2 5 9-12 5 9 Total 13 26 October 25, 1976 27 6 56 83 Number of students 33.6 19 80-81 6/9 11 i 6 11 31 Number of students 6 35 Total 41 19 79- 80 14/14 15 3 7 13 388 - 29 - 3. RIDGEWOOD Units x number of School Ape Children 26 2 R.R. Units 2G x 25 Number of students 69 3 R.R. Units 69 x .21. 7 14 lots 14 x 2 96 28 Total 13f Grade Level 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 #Units/Students 13/16 19/24 20/25 20/25 K-5 6 1� 1� 23 32 7-8 3 3 4 9-12 6 9 12 Total -1� 1tiV 35 21 -2`-) 56 i7 4. MEADOWOO D AT SPEAR Units x number of . School Ape Children 41 Units Number of students 41 x 1.88 Grade Level 1977-78 1978-79 77.08 1979-80 1980-81 #Units/Students 12/23 12/23 12123 5/8 K-5 8 62 12 23 21 7-8 4 1 9-12 10 14 ) Total 23 44 26 34 64 71 5. PROPOSL'D APARTMENTS FOR DESLAURIER PROPERTY Units x number of School Age Children 77 2 B.R. Units 77 x 25 Number of students Grade Level 1977-78 1978-79 19 #Units/Students 48/12 29/7 K-5 5 6 7 1 7-8 1 9-12 1 5 12 16 ACTUAL PROJECTIONS ' 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 _ K-5 1032 1016 982 990972 6-8 692 629 593 533 527 I 9-12 910 935 940 915 859 Sub -Aggregate 2634 2580 2515 2438 2358 Tuition 71 56 53 60 60 Sub -Totals 1U32 1016 982 990 972 692 629 593 533 527 981 991 993 975 919 Sub -Aggregate 2705 i 2636 2568 249$ 2418 - RIDGEWOOD 6 14 23 32 # of units to 4 8 12 16 be constructed 6 13 21 29 unknown MEADOW BROOK 5 10 15 i # of units to (WJOY) 3 I 7 10 be constructe(.1 ' S ' 9 13 unknown f ' 1 DUMONT 6 I 8 11 13 7 9 11 5 i 8 11 14 ` IMEADOWOOD AT 8 12 23 21 SPEAR 7 14 13 16 8 18 26 34 E DESLAURIER 5 7 JJ I R PROPERTY 3 4 I COMP ETED APARTMENTS 4 5 J I 6 38 60 81 3 DEVELOPMENT4 26 1 44 SO 27 TOTALS 6 35� 61 79 48 I TOTAL INCLUDING 1038 1054 1042 1071 1006 TUITION & 696 655 637 583 554 DEVELOPMENTS 987 1026 1054 10S4 I 967 AGGREGATE 2 7..1 273S 2733 2708 27' 25 _.. TOTAL INCLUDING 1031 1054 1042 1071 1006 DEVELOPMENTS & 696 65S 637 ` 583 554 EXCLUDING TUITION 916 ! 970 1 1001 0g4 907 AGGREGATE 2.650 2670 ?FS(1 2hdS� 24(," __...__._.. -3 0 - -31- i• Table III Population Trends 1970 11975 Chittenden County 99,131 110,868 Burlington 38,633 41,567 South Burlington 10,032 10,246* Source Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission * 1976 estimate 1976 Population Estimates - South Burlington. 2% armual growth based on 1970 census 11,297 Same rate as Chittenden County 11,452 Regional Planning Estimate - Actual 10,246 Federal Goverment Revenue Sharing Formula 9,983 % Increase -32- Table IV Tax Base Growth New Building Permits South Burlington, Vermont Source - Annual Reports 1970-1971 1971-1972 1972-1973 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 Residential* 1,051,225 1,674,455 1,261,610 2,982,804 864,858 1,301,852 Commercial* 1,996,100 1,246,700 3,587,850 1,317,865 862,085 2,432,600 1970-1971 Grand List Residential 174,137.82 Commercial & Industrial 96,928.75 1970-1971 Appraisals: Residential 34,827,564.00 Commercial & Industrial 19,385,750.00 1970-1971 1971-1972 1972-1973 1973-1974 1974-1975 1975-1976 Percentage R. .030 .048 .036 .086 .025 .037 Growth C&I .103 .064 .185 .068 .044 .125 imulative Residential 9,136,804 267. Totals Commercial & Industrial 11,443,200 597. 1976-1977 Approved Projects University Mall Expansion Digital Plant Sheraton Expansion ICV Office Bldg. Ramada Expansion Branch Office Graves Motel Restaurants *Includes Alterations and Additions - 3 3- Table V New Residential Units .For Core, Environ I, and Several Environ II Towns Includes Single Family, Multi -Family, Mobile Homes, and Camps MO"n Burlington 129 69 44 78 75 Colchester 122 232 73 97 104 Essex Town 66 69 53 89 115 Essex Junction N/A 38 32 25 149 Hinesburg 50 37 45 34 39 Jericho 71 48 41 23 48 Milton 115 94 90 50 65 Shelburne 69 54 55 49 40 South Burlingto 34 40 35 18 39 Williston 20 37 24 33 53 Winooski 23 4 -38 1 7 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 -34- ESTIKATED HOUSING NEEDS AND POPULATION SOURCE: CRITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING CaltlISSION 1970 Avg. 1975A 1975 Estimated 1980B 1980 Estimated Additional Family Size Estimated Housing Estimated Housing Unit Dwelling Unit Population Need Population Needs Bolton 3.26 672 +10 866 51 Burlington 3.41 40,429 904 42,052 1,298 Charlotte 3.75 2,276 56 2,894 227 Colchester 4.03 11,215 798 12,579 1,141 Essex 3.75 13,219 147 14,788 574 Hinesburg 3.76 2,418 141 3,084 320 Huntington 3.69 993 35 1,271 ill Jericho 4.05 3,082 23 3,922 234 Milton 3.77 5,840 50 7,439 481 Richmond 3.60 2,794 46 3,544 258 1. George 2.98 605 5 680 32 Shelburne 3.64 4,525 28 5,043 162 So. Burlington 3.65 10,246 225 11,502 475 Underhill 4.01 1,640 97 2,083 209 Westford 4.22 1,519 12 1,948 115 Williston 3.78 3,685 64 4,136 184 Winooski 3.40 7,096 321 7,932 576 Chittenden County 3.59 112,254 2,942 125,763 6,448 A1975 Occupied dwelling unit x 1970 family size dwelling unit = 1975 Estimated Population. BCCRPC projections. -35- TABLE VI INCOME LEVELS & HOUSING AVAILABLE Chittenden County A Income Level Distribution in Housing Available in % 0 - 3999 26.2% -0- 4000 - 7999 9.0% 1.5% 6000 - 7999 9.7% .5% 8000 - 9999 8.8% 3.9% 10,000 - 14,999 18.3% 32.0% 15,000 - 24,999 18.7% 48.8% 25,000 - 49,999 5.5% 12.8% 50,000 plus .8% .5% Unknown 3.0% - A1974 Vermont Personal Income Tax Return County Distribution by Income class. Vt. Dept. of Taxes, 11-75. BSpring 1976 Survey by CCRPC. Factor of 2.5 x income level used. Sampling included, 203 units available for sale. KENNEDY DRIVE APARTMENTS MAY 10, 1977 FOR ICV CORPORATION PAGE I SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT SUB -DIVISION SUBMISSION PHASE II and III 1. a. PROJECT: Kennedy Drive Apartments Kennedy Drive South Burlington, Vermont b. OWNER: ICV Corporation 100 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont C. SURVEYOR Webster -Martin Stamp -Rodney D. Charron. Number-188 State of Vermont d. BOUNDARIES LOCATION MAP, ETC. See Site Plan dated April 22, 1977 Revised May 9, 1977 2. STREETS: a. Private streets requested (N.A.) 3. STREET LOCATION: a. Private streets requested (N.A.) 4. CURVES: a. Private streets requested (N.A.) KENNEDY DRIVE APARTMENTS MAY 10, 1977 FOR ICV CORPORATION PAGE II SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT S. PUBLIC SPACE: a. A 20' easement has been shown on the Site Plan for a pedes- trian trail. As agreed at the last public meeting on Phase I this would be located in an area which is usable by the community within the Conservation Zone along Potash Brook. b. Dedication of land along Williston Road as agreed in Site Plan Review of Lot #1. 6. LOTS: a. Lot No. 1 - Office Building (under construction) b. Lot No. 2 - Commercial (not developed) c. Lot No. 3 - Residential (to be developed under this application) 7. IMPROVEMENTS: a. All Utilities shown on Site Plan dated April 22, 1977, revised May 9, 1977 for Phase II and III. b. Outside lighting -Shown on above Site Plan. Catalog cuts of fixtures submitted in Phase I. c. Electrical Power - Underground as approved by Green Mountain Power Corporation. d. Landscaping - Shown for Phase I. Due to the heavy wooded areas, all landscaping will be planned as required by the Zoning Ordinance and reviewed with the City Planner, Zoning Administrator and City Engineer after the buildings have been physically located on site and existing trees located, preserved, etc. Every effort will be made to save all existing trees, shrubs, etc. where feasible. 8. PROPERTY MARKERS: a. See Site Plan and Surveyor's Plan dated May 26, 1977. 9. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: a. See Detail Drawings and Profiles attached. KENNEDY DRIVE APARTMENTS MAY 10, 1977 FOR ICV CORPORATION PAGE III SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: a. Additional sketch of building exterior. b. Energy Conservation - All walls will be insulated with 6" of fiber glass; bath and ceilings with 12" fiber glass batts, all with a vapor barrier or with an approved equal method. Every effort will be made to use all practical water saving devices such as flow constrictors on all shower heads, and faucets with water saving devices for water closets. c. After review of the above documents by the city admin- istration and changes have been incorporated a milar print as required will be submitted for recording. Milar plan will be submitted upon request by City Planning Consultant when technical review is completed. 11. WAIVERS REQUESTED: a. Private street in lieu of public. b. Deletion of curbs except where specifically required by City Engineer. When required, pre -cast curbs have been approved by the City Engineer. Respectfully submitted, 346 SHELBURNE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT ! w% ic' AGEIJCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and. ParIrs Department of Water Resources Environmental Board Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of planning Naturl Resources Conservation Council January 29, 1973 Mr. Jonathan Bump Division Environmental Protection Agency of Environmental Conservation Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Jon: Reference is made BSSB Realty Trust velopment is for units adjacent ro Burlington. Site Description: ROBBRT B. WILLIAMS, Secretary NicYn pel c ,7 eli� it a56C(2 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND PARKS Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 concerning application number 4C0095 - of Boston, Mass. The ;iature of this de - the construction of 260 Garden type apartment and north and west of s.ennedy Drive in South The area adjacent to Kennedy Drive is coriposed of open pasture with clumps of relatively young white pine reproduction. This area also coincides with the Windsor soi:. series and is bounded approximately on the north and west by the 320 foot contour. From this contour the ;round slopes abruptly to the north and west to the flood plain created by Potash Brook. This area also supports a mature stand of white pine with admixtures of hemlock and other species. The soils in this area comprise the Enosburg-Whately and Limerick series This particular site was selected as a potential recreation and conservation area in the Natural Resource Inventory of 1967. Its highest pric,rities were for use in conservation education and as a greenbe:it. Problem Areas: The area lying generally below the 3201 contour is indicated to support builcings, roads and parking areas. This area consists of Enosburg-Whately soils within an unbroken forest canopy. Although judicious clearing is indicated, the creation of openings will very likely create a se`ere windthrow hazard. 1 Mr. Jonathan Burip -2- January 29, 1973 The soils throu;hout this area are presently in a saturated condition with many seeps or springs in evidence. This area will be subject;d to severe limitations for all development. It will be periodically flooded from Potash Brook and runoff from a saturated condition above. In regard to th,� area above the 320' contours, it should be pointed out that when the Windsor soil series is found adjacent to the Enosbur;-Whately soils, there is a possibility that a high .water table might exist. However, since municipal sewage and water are to be provided this should minimize problems in the area above the 320' contour. Since this latter area would be adjacent to Kennedy Drive, all efforts should be made to preserve the natural beauty. Not only would it provide a visual barrier but it would reduce the noise level to the apartments. The plan indicates two curb cuts. Since Kennedy Drive was originally intended as a limited accesshighway this matter should be brou:ht to the attention of the Highway Department. If other develc,pments are planned then .;he limited concept is gone, speed limits are reduced and other problems arise. Sincerely, William P. Hal:. Environmental jidvisor WPH:j cc: Norman Hud,,on Edward Sti(:kney �trr PrVartment '"rabquarters DORSET STREET OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER 863-6455 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. February 2, 1977 Mr. William B. Wessel Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Wessel, After reviewing the preliminary site plans on the ICV apartments on Kennedy Drive the following was found to give the fire department a problem to maintain efficient fire protection. 1. Hydrant and location not adequate for protection to units. 2. 20 Ft. roads not adequate for fire equipment which would be needed in case of a emergency. 3. At this time the water supply is below standard for fire protection. 1 have called the Insurance Service Office in Boston and at this time most of South Burlingtons water flow for fire protection is below required flow needs. The insurance rates are set by the water flow needed for fire protection. If something is not done to have the proper facilities needed to protect the buildings in South Burlington in no way can we do our job and the whole city could recieve a increase in there insurance rate. If you have any questions on the above please call me at 863-6455. Sincerely 6 J ames W. Goddette Sr. Chief i } April 30, 1979 Memo to: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Spokes Re: Treetop Development You asked us to determine what the extent of your juris- diction is in reviewing the plans of Investors Corporation of Vermont (ICV) for Phase II of its Treetop project. Specifically, you wished to know whether you can review the developer's compliance with the utility plans for Phase I. Our investigation reveals that the entire matter is compli- cated by a series of conflicting utility plans for Phase I, conflicting representations by the developer and City per- sonnel and unwritten policies and customs of the Water Department. After hours of work, we must confess that we are unable to find any easy route through this maze of con- fusion. We also must reluctantly point out that the City's administrative record of this subdivision is lacking in ap- priate documentation and organization. Lastly, we find that the developer has failed to comply with several of the conditions imposed in your approval of Phase I. Perhaps most alarming is the fact that the developer has connected Phase I of Treetop to the municipal water system, yet the City has not received a bill of sale for the water main within the boundaries of the development, nor has the City received the requisite easements for the line. In relation to the Planning Commission's present authority to review Phase I utility plans during the process of the current Phase II review, we conclude that there are three independent grounds for the Planning Commission to exercise jurisdicition: 1. Stipulation No. 10 which accompanied the Planning Com- mission's final plat approval on September 27, 1977 reserved authority for the Planning Commission to review building location, parking and circulation, utilities, and landscaping in relation to Phase II. Because any units constructed pursuant to Phase II approval must be connected to a public water system, and because such a system must comply with City policies and specifications, review of "utilities" pursuant to Stipulation No. 10 necessarily includes review of the existing Treetop water system. 2. In preparation for the City's acceptance of easements and bills of sale regarding the Treetop water system, the Planning Commission has the authority to review both .the existing and the proposed water system to assure ICV's compliance with City policies and specifications as well as conditions imposed during the course of the Planning Commission review process. 3. In a circumstance such as the Treetop development where the Planning Commission has retained jurisdiction to re- view subsequent phases of a development, it is inherent in the Planning Commission's authority in reviewing such subsequent phases to scrutinize the developer's compli- ance with conditions and specifications imposed on al- ready completed construction. We conclude that independently and collectively these three grounds demonstrate Planning Commission jurisdiction to review the Treetop water system in its entirety. Furthermore, we also feel a reasonable solution to these problems can only be accomplished by examining the equities on both sides. After your approval of Phase I, there seems to have been some bartering between the City and the developer. At one time, ICV was to install a main line along its entire frontage on Kennedy Drive. In addition, it was to install a parallel line within its development to service the condominium units. Apparently, it was decided that this was an unnecessary duplication of expense and the City agreed that ICV could combine the main line with its own service line and thus relieve ICV of the burden of extending the main line along its entire frontage. It was the City's understanding, however, that ICV would extend the combined line to its boundary. This understanding seems compatible with the generalized City policy of providing an expanded yet integrated water system. Associated with this issue is ICV's demand to be reimbursed on a lineal foot frontage basis for the line it installed -2- from Williston Road to the Treetop development. This reim- bursement issue is clearly not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission; reimbursement for frontage is a matter for determination by the City Engineer and the Water Commission. However, because the reimbursement question has been raised previously in discussions between ICV and City personnel, the Planning Commission should remain aware of that unresolved question. It is our suggestion that the City take a collective approach to the resolution of the several problems which have arisen in relation to the Treetop water sytem. We would suggest that the Planning Commission invite the participation of Bill Szymanski as Town Engineer, as well as the City Water Commission to develop a total and final solution to the various water system problems. We do not suggest that the Planning Commission involve itself in the frontage reimbursement issue, nor that the Commission dele- gate its Phase II review authority. Furthermore, we do not believe that a collective solution to this problem should involve "negotiation" with the developer. However, involve- ment by the Water Commission and City Engineer would facili- tate a complete solution to the water system problems at Treetop. Our conclusions are as follows: (1) the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to review the entire Treetop water system; (2) on the basis of prior conditions and understandings between the City and ICV, the Planning Commission may con- clude either that ICV is obligated to extend the present water system to the Treetop boundary or that the lack of clarity regarding the Treetop utility review prevents the Commission from requiring that the line be extended at this date; (3) as a prerequisite to Phase II approval, the Commission should require that ICV provide the City with easements and bills of sale in relation to the water system; regardless of what decision is made regarding extension of the present water line, the Commission should require that ICV provide the City with an easement sufficient to permit the City to extend the water system to the boundary at some future date. During my review of the Treetop problem, it has become ap- parent that there are certain difficulties regarding review and approval of utilities provided in new developments. To a large extent, I believe that these problems arise because of procedural breakdowns as well as poorly defined review functions. I would be happy to organize and participate in a meeting with the Planning Commission, Bill Szymanski, Steve Page, Dick Ward and the Water Commission to discuss problems and to establish procedures. =15 If you have any questions regarding matters discussed in this letter, please feel free to contact me. '> RAS/ccb cc: William Szymanski, City Manager -4- (1�71 Investors Corporation of Vermont Investors Management Company ICV Construction, Inc. 1795 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-2311 September 4, 1980 Mr. William G. Livingston Attorney at Law Spokes and Obuchowski Post Office Box 2325 South Burlington, VT 05401 RE: Treetop Condominiums Legal Documents Dear Mr. Livingston: We are in receipt of a copy of your letter to our attorney, Carl Lisman, dated July 25, 1980 enclosing copies of easements, bills of sale and other legal documents which were furnished by us to the City of South Burlington on October 31, 1979. The documents had been submitted to the City in accordance with the terms of the final subdivision approval for the Treetop Development by the South Burlington Planning Commission and had been duly executed by us on that date. The legal documents in question had first been supplied to the City Attorney by Robert Perry, Esq. on April_ 20, 1977. The format for the easements, offer of irrevocable dedication and an agreement and waiver with respect to roads, had carefully been supplied by the City Attorney and was followed. We mention this to illustrate the fact that the City has had ample opportunity to review and comment upon the legal documentation; in fact we have revised the instruments in accordance with the City's often changing requirements on at least five different occasions during the project. Not having heard from the City to the contrary, and having received valid building permits for the construction of the condominium units and other improvements comprising the remainder of the Treetop Develop- ment, we had quite naturally concluded that the City found the docu- mentation to be in satisfactory form. Your letter of July 25, 1980, some eight months later, clearly indicates otherwise. Please be advised that we have, as of this past month, conveyed all of the real estate associated with the Treetop Development which was formerly owned by Investors Corporation of Vermont. This was accomplished by means of the Condominium Declaration, as supplemented, which is now recorded in the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. In effect, our ability to convey easements, bills of sale and other interests to the City has become much more restricted. Mr. William G. Livingston 9/4/80 Page two Since the copies of the easements and other documents accompanying your letter have been marked up for changes, even at this most advanced date, and have yet to be executed by the City, despite the passage of eight months time, we conclude that valid easements, bills of sale and irrevocable offers of dedication do not exist. There is no contract between this company and the City of South Burlington; the City has obviously declined to accept our offer. Nevertheless, we hereby express our complete willingness to remedy the situation to the best of our ability and comply fully with the terms of our subdivision approval, to the extent that we are legally capable of doing so. We are advised that we have retained certain prerogatives with respect to the Development, including certain easements, and we are assured by our attorney that we have the capacity to convey these to the City. To the extent that we are legally unable to comply with any conditions, the record will support the fact that the City's inaction in the matter has abridged our legal capacity to supply all of the documents requested. Accordingly, we offer to transfer our easements for the water and sewer lines to the City of South Burlington by means of appropriate quit claim instruments as expeditiously as possible. This will permit nearly instantaneous connections to the Treetop water and sewer mains by developments further along Kennedy Drive, In return, we request that the City furnish us with a document indica- ting that all legal documentation in connection to the Treetop Condo- minium Project is found to be in order and that the terms of our final subdivision approval, with respect to the legal documents, easements, rights of way, bills of sale, offers of irrevocable dedication, etc. have been fully complied with. We further request that the City furnish us with a document from the City Engineer that the water and sewer lines in the Development have been installed properly, are in satisfactory condition, and that the City will assume the burden of maintenance and repairs from this time forward. We believe that the above can be accomplished within a span of twenty four hours from this date. Please believe that we are as anxious to resolve this matter as you are. Very truly yours, Peter Judge President PJ/jal J a . Q PA 10 �!i-d !e>aft4A;W;Z-- C-3E-P\mL"j- L-bf tat- No Text PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hear- ing at the South Burlington City Hull, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on February 8, 1977 to consider the to lowing: Preliminary Plat application of In- vestors Corp. of Vermont, Mr. Peter Judge, Agent, for approval of a sub- division consisting of 3 pPrOx- imately .75 A, .75 A, nal.36 Alin size (the smaller to or ercial purposes) a or the development of a 240 apartment complex on the. 9er lot. The proposed sub- d' sion Is bounded on the south and i ast by Kennedy Drive, on the west by lands of Marvin G. Sheffield, Jon Stokes, Shakey's, Inc., Roostertail,' Inc, the Williston Corporation, Met- ropolitan Life Insurance, Densmore Company, Inc., and Williston Road,. as per plans O on file at Clty-Hall, 1175 Williston Road. William Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission January 22, 1977 CONVERT CLUTTER TO CASH PUBLIC HEARING- SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hear ing at the South Burlington City Half, Conference Room, 1175 .Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, June 14, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following: - Final Plat .Application of Investors Corporation of Vermont, Mr. Peter Judge, Agent, for aoprovol of Phases II and•III, 72 and 84 un!ts respective- Iy, of a 3 phase, 220 unit apartment proiect situated on 36 acre lot. The Proposed subdivision is bounded on the south and east byKennedy Drive, on the west by lands of Robert and Leo Dumont, Duane Merrill, and the City of South Burlington, on the north by lands of John Walt, Jon Stokes, Shakey's, Inc., Roostertail, Inc., The Williston Corporation, Met- ropolitan Life Insurance Co., Densmore, Inc., and Investors Cor- poration of Vermont. Copies of the Applicotion ore available for public Inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. William B: Wessel, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission May 29, 1977 / y VVj PUBLIC NOTICE '4 ?S!H BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION ' \ - SUBDIVISION HEARING The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold o P ublic hear - PUBLIC NOTICE SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING. The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hear- ing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on April 10: 1977 of 7:30 P.m. to consider the following: - Final Plat application to Investors Corporation of Vermont, Mr. Peter Judge, Agent, for approval of a sub- divisionconsisting of 3 lots, approx- imotely .75A and 36A In size (the smaller lots for commercial purposes) and for the first phase of a 240 unit apartment complex on the larger lot. The proposed subdivision Is bounded on the south and east by Kennedy Drive, on the west by lands of Marvin Sheffield, Jon Stokes, Shakey's, Inc., Roostertall, Inc. The Williston Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Densmore Company, Inc., and Williston Road, asper plans on file at. City Hall, 1175 Williston Road. William B. Wessel, Chairman So. Burlington Planning Commission April 10, 1977 ing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room,1175 Williston Rood, South Burlington, Vermont on April 26, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. to con- sider the following: �Inal plat application of In- vestors Corporation of Ver- mont, Mr. Peter Judge, Agent, for approval of a sub- division consisting of three (3) lots, approximately .75A, .75A and 36A in size (the smaller lots for commercial Purposes) and for the first phase of a 240 unit apartment complex on the larger lot. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the south and east by Kennedy Drive, on the west by lands of Robert & Leo Dumont, Duane Mer- rill, and the City of South Burlington, on the north by lands of Marvin Sheffield, Jon Stokes, Shakey's. Inc., Roostertail, Inc. The Williston Corporation, Met- ropolitan Life Insurance, Densmore Co., Inc., and Williston Road, as per plans on fila of City, 1175 Williston Road. The purpose of this advertisement his to correct typographical errors which appeared In the notice Published 4/10/77. William B. Wessel Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission April 14, 1977 LEGAL NOTICES PUBuL MLAKmu. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION Tho South Burlington Planning Com- mission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Con- ference Room, 1175 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tues- day, Sept. 27, 1977 at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following: Application of Investor's Corpo- ration of Vermont, Mr. Peter Judge, agent, for approval of a revised final Plot, consisting of a 3 phase 188 unit apartment proiect on a 36 acre parcel. The Prolect Is bounded on the south and east by Kennedy Drive, on the wea west by lands of Robert and Leo Dumont, Duane Merrill, and the City of South Burlington, on the north by lands of John Wolf, Jon Stokes, Shdkev's, .Inc., Rooster -Tall, Inc., The Williston Corp., Metropoli- tan Life Insurance Co., Densmore, Inc., and Investors Corp. of Ver- mont. Copies of the Application are available for public Inspection at the South Burlingotn City Hall. William B. Wessel, South Burlington Planning Commission Notice to appear: September 10, 1977 f SOUTH BUI ZONING In accordance wilt ,Soouth and. lington, Zor. nj R,.. Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Zoning. Board of Adlust- -ment will hold a'public hearing at the South Burlington -.City%Offices, Yonference Room,'1175 Williston rRood, South Burlington, Vermont, on .Monday, August 7, 1978, at 5:00 p.m. to consider the following: _ Appeal Of Investors Corporation of Vermont seeking a variance, from (Section 11.00, Dimensional require- ' ments of the South Burl ingtonZoning ;Regulations. ` Request Is -lot per - `mission to construct. a 24' x 160', carport to within forty (40).feet of - Ahe required front yard, at Treetop. `Condominiums, 300 KenneQ,v Drive. Robert M. Martineau, Chairman .,SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING] BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1 ,July 22,1978 I; SOUTN B i ON ZONIN E . In accordance ,outh Bur- Iinoton. Zonl, flans and Chapt _er ill_ V.S.A..the South Burlingfm [on,,,,, Board. of Adlust ment, will hold a public. hear. In0 Ot. the South Burlington City Df- lices,. Conference Room,: 1175 Williston Rood, 'South .,Burlington, Vermont on Monday: August 24 1973, at.S:00 p.m. to consider the follow- Ing:- - -No.-One. Appeal of Investors Corpo• ration of Vermont seeking a vor fence, .from: Section 11.00, .Dimensional requirements oftheSouth Burlington Zoning Regu- lations. Request is for permission to conwithin tl thirty (30) feet Of M�reequired front yard, at 'Treetop 'Con dominiums, 3W Kennedy.Drive. No. Two. APP"I Of Charles Zachary I seeking approval, under Section 8.10, Conditional uses of the South `Bur- lington Zoning Regulations. Request Is for permission to construct a res- taurant containing approximately 7,200 square feet at 50 Green Moun. fain Drive. No. Three. -Appealof James F. O'Hare seeking a variance, from Section 11.Op, Dimensional require- ments of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for per- mission to construct o n 12' x 24' ga- In nine � feet Of the mWesterlys deyard, at 32 McIntosh Avenue. ROBERT M. MARTINEAU ZONING CHAIRMAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. August 5, 1978 -